Recommendations for Robin consider the following actions to address the shortcomings in the response:
1. Submit a Refinement Request:
• Ask for specific documents related to the “most recent advice” given by the MoH, such as emails, memos, or communications with Taumata Arowai or media outlets.
• Request primary source materials (e.g., meeting minutes, internal discussion papers) showing how the MoH considered international evidence in a New Zealand context.
• Seek clarification on why New Zealand’s MAVs differ from stricter standards in countries like the US and Australia, including any risk assessments or cost-benefit analyses.
2. Contact Taumata Arowai:
• While the MoH’s redirection to Taumata Arowai may be an attempt to deflect, Taumata Arowai’s role in PFAS monitoring could yield additional data, such as recent testing results or regulatory decisions.
3. Engage the Ombudsman:
• If you believe the response is incomplete or deliberately vague, you can request a review by the Ombudsman under section 28(3) of the OIA. Highlight the lack of specific documents, the omission of decision-making details, and the failure to fully address the request’s scope. Contact: [email address] or 0800 802 602.
4. Verify International Evidence:
• Independently access the referenced guidelines (e.g., WHO 2022/2024, US EPA) to compare with New Zealand’s MAVs. The MoH’s lack of citations suggests a need to cross-check their claims about alignment with international evidence.

Conclusion
The Ministry of Health’s response to your OIA request partially addresses the three requested items but exhibits potential misdirection (redirecting to Taumata Arowai), misleading information (implying alignment with international standards without addressing stricter limits elsewhere), and obfuscation (providing general information instead of specific documents). The response fails to fully address the specificity of the “most recent advice,” the detailed decision-making process, and the rationale for New Zealand’s MAVs compared to stricter international standards. While the attached document provides a useful overview, it lacks the transparency and granularity required to fully satisfy the request. Further action, such as refining the request or engaging the Ombudsman, may be necessary to obtain a complete response.