UNCLASSIFIED
New Zealand Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and Trade
Manatū Aorere
195 Lambton Quay
16 June 2025
Private Bag 18−901
Wellington 6160
New Zealand
T +64 4 439 8000
F +64 4 472 9596
Will Bruce
OIA 30139
[FYI request #30945 email]
Tēnā koe Will Bruce
Thank you for your email of 11 May 2025, transferred from the Department of
Prime Minister and Cabinet on 20 May 2025, in which you request the following under
the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA):
1.
“All correspondence (emails, meeting minutes, phone logs, or memoranda)
since 1 October 2023 between [specify: e.g., the Prime Minister’s Office,
Ministry of Justice, or MFAT] and the following media outlets regarding
editorial coverage of Israel, Palestine, or Gaza:
a.
RNZ (Radio New Zealand)
b.
TVNZ
c.
Stuff
d.
NZ Herald
e.
Newshub (Warner Bros. Discovery)
2.
Any directives, guidance, or suggestions provided to these outlets by
government officials or agencies about terminology, framing, or narrative
emphasis in reporting on the conflict (e.g., use of "terrorist" vs. "militant,"
"genocide" vs. "war").
3.
Records of complaints or pressure from external entities (e.g., foreign
governments, lobby groups, or advocacy organisations) that were forwarded
to or discussed with NZ media outlets by government agencies.”
On
27 May 2025, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (the Ministry) contacted you
to discuss the scope of your request, as your original request as it was currently framed
would require review of a significant amount of information to locate information
potentially in scope and would likely be refused under section 18(f) of the OIA.
On 28 May 2025, you contacted the Ministry suggesting alternative amendments, set out
below, and if those were not possible you sought estimated volume of records requiring
review, and whether a staggered release could mitigate resourcing concerns:
UNCLASSIFIED
Page 2 of 6
1.
“Limit the scope to MFAT-only records (excluding other agencies, given the
partial transfer from DPMC).
2.
Exclude names of staff and journalists (as suggested), provided substantive
content (e.g., institutional positions, policy guidance) is retained.
3.
Focus on high-level correspondence (e.g., ministerial briefings, policy
directives, or external complaints) rather than routine administrative
exchanges.”
On 4 June 2025, the Ministry replied to you as follows:
“Thank you for confirming we can limit the request to only information prepared by
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (the Ministry) and exclude names of staff
and journalists.
In the first instance, it is unclear what you mean by “Focus on high-level
correspondence (e.g., ministerial briefings, policy directives, or external
complaints) rather than routine administrative exchanges.” Can you please clarify
this further?
Secondly, the Ministry receive a significant volume of emails relating to Israel-
Gaza, and equally have responded to many media and Official Information Act
1982 (OIA) requests since October 2023.
The Ministry’s correspondence with journalists relating to media queries is limited
to simple questions and answers, and would not include any directions other than
to provide the Ministry’s response. An initial search of the Ministry’s media team
email inbox identified more than 7,600 emails in the past 12 months alone when
searching using your specified search terms.
In relation to OIAs from journalists, correspondence would include the initial
request, discussions on the request including refinement, partial transfers and
extensions (as necessary), and a final response. Similarly, there would be no
directions to media other than to simply provide the Ministry’s response. In the
time period 1 October 2023 to date, searches of the Ministry’s OIA tracker has
identified more than 500 OIA requests using your specified search terms. In order
to respond to your request as it is currently framed would require assessing all 500
requests to confirm if they were received by journalists, then review approximately
1,000 emails (not including any discussions on request outside of initial request
and final response) to assess for potential release.
Furthermore, a search of the Ministry’s OIA tracker in the time period 1 January
2025 to date has identified more than 100 OIA requests using your specified
search terms, which would then require assessment of all requests to determine if
they are scope and then potentially reviewing approximately 200 emails to assess
for release.
It is noted that many requests on this topic have been proactively released on the
Ministry website – you may wish to visit these pages for some examples of the
discussions with journalists on this matter:
•
Official Information Act responses | New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs
and Trade
Page 3 of 6
•
Israel-Hamas Conflict | New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
To confirm, to assess at least 8,600 emails for your request would put significant
pressure on the Ministry’s ability to perform its regular functions and accordingly
your proposed amendment would still fall within grounds for refusal under section
18(f) of the OIA. A staggered response would not make this manageable,
particularly when as referenced earlier the Ministry does not have discussions with
journalists outside of standard question and answer communications.
In our initial assessment of the volume of information potentially in scope we had
not also considered the impact of assessing OIA requests and responses. We again
kindly ask that you consider refining your request as follows, with a small
amendment to exclude OIA requests:
1.
“All email correspondence from 1 January 2025 to 20 May 2025 between
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s media team and the following
media outlets relating to Israel, Palestine and Gaza:
a.
RNZ (Radio New Zealand)
b.
TVNZ
c.
Stuff
d.
NZ Herald
e.
Newshub (Warner Bros. Discovery)
2.
Any directives, guidance, or suggestions provided to these outlets by
government officials or agencies about terminology, framing, or narrative
emphasis in reporting on the conflict (e.g., use of "terrorist" vs. "militant,"
"genocide" vs. "war").
3.
Records of complaints or pressure from external entities (e.g., foreign
governments, lobby groups, or advocacy organisations) that were forwarded
to or discussed with NZ media outlets by government agencies.””
On 7 June 2025, you responded as follows:
“Thank you for your email of 4 June seeking clarification. I appreciate the
opportunity to ensure we are aligned on the scope of this request.
To directly address your questions:
1.
Regarding “high-level correspondence” (your point #1):
This refers exclusively to communications involving:
a.
Policy directives or guidance provided to media outlets regarding
terminology, framing, or narrative emphasis in coverage of
Israel/Palestine (aligning with your point #2)
b.
Records of external complaints or pressure from foreign governments,
lobby groups, or advocacy organisations that were forwarded to or
discussed with NZ media outlets (aligning with your point #3)
c.
Communications originating from or involving senior staff (Minister’s
office, Deputy Secretaries, or divisional heads)
2.
Confirmed exclusions (as per my 28 May email):
Page 4 of 6
a.
All correspondence related to OIA requests and processing
b.
Routine media queries and responses
c.
Administrative or logistical communications To assist with processing,
I suggest:
d.
Applying keyword filters (e.g., “guidance”, “terminology”, “narrative”,
“complaint”)
e.
Limiting searches to communications involving the Minister’s office,
Deputy Secretaries, or Middle East Division leads
Next steps requested:
1. Confirmation that future searches will apply these parameters 2. A revised
estimate of relevant records under this correct scope 3. Clarification as to
whether any records exist matching points #2 and #3 above
I trust this provides the clarity needed to progress this request efficiently. Should
MFAT believe this scope remains unworkable, I would appreciate specific
reference to the relevant OIA section justifying any refusal, along with any
proposed alternatives.”
On 9 June 2025, the Ministry contacted you to confirm we could interpret your latest
email to be that you are now only requesting information relating to parts 2 and 3 of
your request.
On 10 June 2025, you advised the following:
“Thank you for your email of 9 June. To clarify:
My request still includes Part 1, but refined as outlined in my email of 7 June 2025,
specifically:
1. Scope of Part 1:
Limited to high-level correspondence involving:
a.
Policy directives, guidance, or terminology discussions (aligned with
Part 2).
b.
Records of external complaints or pressure forwarded to media
(aligned with Part 3).
c.
Communications from senior MFAT staff (e.g., Minister’s office, Deputy
Secretaries, Middle East Division leads).
d.
Excluded: Routine administrative exchanges, OIA processing emails,
and names of staff/journalists.
e.
Proposed search filters: Keywords such as “guidance,” “terminology,”
“narrative,” or “complaint” to streamline retrieval.
Parts 2 and 3 remain unchanged and can be processed concurrently.
If MFAT believes the refined Part 1 is still unworkable, please:
* Provide a detailed justification under section 18(f) of the OIA, including:
* Estimated hours required to apply the above filters.
* Whether any records exist under this scope.
Page 5 of 6
Alternatively, confirm if a staggered release(e.g., by timeframe or division) would
resolve resourcing concerns.”
Response to your request
Part one of your request of 11 May 2025 is refused under section 18(f) of the OIA, as the
information requested cannot be made available without substantial collation or
research. As discussed in the Ministry’s email to you of 4 June 2025, more than 7,600
emails were identified in a 12-month period potentially in scope of your request – if
assuming an average of 633 emails per month, this would amount to at least 12,666
emails that would need to be assessed in order to determine if they are in scope of your
request. Assuming each email would take 2 minutes to assess and determine in scope,
this would take approximately 422 hours alone simply to identify whether information is
in scope. Again assuming approximately 3 minutes to determine if information needed to
be withheld, and that at least 12,666 emails are in scope, this would require an
additional 633 hours to complete. In conclusion, in order to prepare part one of your
request of 11 May 2025, our assessment is that it would take a minimum of
approximately 1,055 hours, amounting to 132 working days.
Despite proposing a refined timeframe for part one of your request on three occasions,
we have not been able to reach agreement with you on a refinement that makes this
request manageable. The Ministry also sent you publicly available information on the
Israel-Gaza conflict, provided explanations on the nature of the relationship and
exchanges between the Ministry and journalists, and is responding to parts 2 and 3 of
your request of 11 May 2025. Accordingly, the Ministry is satisfied that sufficient
information on the subject matter has been provided to you in order to proceed with a
refusal of part 1 of your request under section 18(f) of the OIA.
Parts two and three of your request are refused in full under section 18(e) of the OIA
because the information does not exist. As mentioned in the Ministry’s email of 4 June
2025, the Ministry does not have any communications with journalists outside of simply
providing responses to journalist questions.
As previously noted, publicly available information on the Israel-Gaza conflict can be
found on the Ministry’s website:
•
Official Information Act responses | New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
Trade
•
Israel-Hamas Conflict | New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Please note that it is our policy to proactively release our responses to official
information requests where possible. Therefore, our response to your request (with your
personal information removed) may be published on the Ministry website:
www.mfat.govt.nz/en/about-us/contact-us/official-information-act-responses/
Page 6 of 6
If you have any questions about this decision, you can contact us by email at:
[email address]. You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the
Ombudsman of this decision by contacting
www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or freephone
0800 802 602.
Nāku noa, nā
Sarah Corbett
for Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Document Outline
