Dear New Zealand Transport Agency,

Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982, I am requesting the following information:

* A copy of the current model litigant policy, or any other policy, guideline, protocol, manual, or internal document or policy - by whatever name - that governs or provides guidance to NZTA staff, legal teams, and/or external counsel on the conduct of litigation or legal proceedings.

* Copies of any previous versions of the above documents that have been in effect at any time during the last ten years, since 2015, to the present.

For each version identified, please indicate:

* The title of the document;

* The period during which it was in effect (including commencement and, if applicable, end dates); and

* A brief description of the context in which the document is/was used (if not clear from the document itself).

If such guidance exists in multiple formats (e.g., standalone documents, sections within a broader code of conduct or legal manual), I would appreciate receiving all relevant material.

If no such documents exist, but internal practices or expectations equivalent to a model litigant approach are followed, please provide a description of those practices and how they are communicated and enforced.

Yours faithfully,

Erika Whittome

Dear Official Correspondence,
Follow-up OIA Request to NZTA – Request for Reconsideration of Withholding Decisions
Thank you for your response to my Official Information Act request, reference OIA 18181.

I am writing to request that NZTA reconsider its decision to withhold the following documents under section 9(2)(h) of the OIA:

"Approach to Property Acquisition Litigation"

"Approach to Public Interest Litigation"

"Approach to General and Commercial Litigation"

"Approach to Prosecutions and Regulatory Appeals"

I respectfully submit that there is an overriding public interest in the release of these documents given that they concern litigation conduct involving matters of significant public consequence. Specifically:

The "Approach to Property Acquisition Litigation" is directly relevant to NZTA's exercise of coercive Crown powers under the Public Works Act 1981, with potentially severe and permanent consequences for affected individuals and families.

The "Approach to Public Interest Litigation" concerns the agency's engagement with cases that raise constitutional, human rights, or systemically important issues, such as discrimination and public accountability.

The "Approach to General and Commercial Litigation" affects how NZTA manages disputes involving public funds, infrastructure delivery, and Crown contractual obligations. These are matters of direct public interest in terms of both fiscal responsibility and procedural fairness.

The "Approach to Prosecutions and Regulatory Appeals" sets out how NZTA exercises statutory enforcement powers and responds to legal challenges. Given the serious consequences such actions may have on individuals and businesses, there is a strong public interest in understanding the guiding principles of these functions.

The existence of these policies, and their role in guiding NZTA's litigation conduct, goes to the heart of public transparency, natural justice, and institutional integrity. I further note that NZTA has confirmed it holds no general Model Litigant Policy. The absence of such a policy only heightens the public interest in understanding the specific policies that do exist and shape the agency’s legal strategy.

I would appreciate clarification on how NZTA reconciles its blanket reliance on section 9(2)(h) to withhold the above litigation policies in full — particularly in the absence of any general Model Litigant Policy — with a Crown agency’s obligations, including the duty of candour and the expectations set out in Crown Law’s "Values for Crown Civil Litigation". These values emphasise the Crown’s responsibility to act fairly, avoid technical game-playing, and be open and transparent in its conduct. The withholding of these foundational policies in their entirety appears difficult to reconcile with those standards.

Additionally, your response noted that NZTA was unable to locate prior versions of its prosecution policy (specifically, the 2013 and 2019 versions), despite being aware of their existence. This raises serious concerns under section 17 of the Public Records Act 2005, which requires public offices to create and maintain full and accurate records.

For the sake of transparency and administrative clarity, could NZTA please confirm:

Whether any search was conducted through NZTA’s internal records management systems, shared drives, or archives to locate these policies;

Whether NZTA maintains any metadata, file identifiers, or archival references to these policies;

What basis NZTA relies on, if any, to treat the disappearance of these policies as an authorised disposal under the Public Records Act 2005.

I would appreciate a brief description of the steps taken to confirm that the documents are no longer held. If earlier versions of the policy happen to be recoverable from third-party archives or public web captures, that would merely highlight that these records were once available — not that NZTA has met its statutory duty to retain and manage them as public records under internal control. I raise this not to dispute your conclusion, but to better understand NZTA’s recordkeeping posture and responsibilities under section 17 of the Public Records Act 2005.

In addition, given that prosecutions or litigation initiated under the 2013 and 2019 policies may still be ongoing, could NZTA please clarify how it is managing any such cases where the governing policy is no longer held on file? If litigation or enforcement actions are still being guided by decisions made under those frameworks, how does NZTA ensure continuity, fairness, or institutional accountability in the absence of a retained record of the policy in effect at the time?

Further, could NZTA confirm when the 2013 and 2019 prosecution policies ceased being in active use, and what retention classification (if any) was applied to them under NZTA’s records disposal authorities or schedules?

Finally, was the 2013 or 2019 prosecution policy ever cited or referenced in internal documents such as training materials, legal briefings, or enforcement manuals? If so, are any of those derivative materials still held?

Please treat this letter as a formal request for reconsideration under the Official Information Act. I will await your response before referring this matter to the Office of the Ombudsman.

Yours sincerely,

Erika Whittome