26 September 2025
Ombudsman Ref: CASE-027401
DPMC Ref: OIA-2024/25-0928
Tēnā koe Dr Glassey,
Investigation of official information complaint OIA-2024/25-0928
Request for information relating to consultation on strengthening New Zealand’s
emergency management legislation
Your original OIA request was received by the National Emergency Management Agency
(NEMA) on 25 May 2025. On 29 May, we asked you to refine your request, as our initial
assessment indicated it could require substantial collation and research. Your refinement
clarified the information you were seeking in Parts 1 and 2 of your original request, and also
included an additional new part, referred to as ‘Part 3,’ for a project plan.
Subsequent to our response to your refined request, you asked the Office of the
Ombudsman to investigate our decision. Please find below NEMA’s responses to the
concerns you have raised about our original decisions regarding Parts 1a, 2, and 3 of your
request.
Part 1a
The information NEMA refused under section 18(d) of the OIA was published on 8
September 2025 and is accessible via the following
link:
https://www.civildefence.govt.nz/cdem-sector/legislation/emergency-management-bill. We understand that the delay in making this information publicly available may have caused
frustration or inconvenience, and we sincerely apologise for this. The delay was not
intentional, but occurred due to an unprecedented surge in OIA requests following two
emergency management alerts for the M8.8 Kamchatka earthquake and tsunami.
Unfortunately, this placed considerable pressure on our resources and impacted our ability to
meet the intended timeframe for proactively releasing the information you sought. We remain
committed to improving our processes to ensure timely proactive releases in the future.
Part 2
As outlined in our original response to you, while submissions on the withdrawn Bill informed
the development of the subsequent Discussion Document, no standalone report was
prepared regarding these earlier submissions, nor was a formal methodology employed in
their analysis.
On this basis, it was NEMA’s view that the material identified and referred to in our original
response was not within the scope of Part 2 of your refined request. We disclosed the
existence of this information to support your understanding of how the matter progressed. As
such, we did not refuse this part of your request but rather considered the material to be out
of scope. In light of your comments to the Ombudsman, we are happy to release the
thematic tables to you (Items 1 and 2 in the attached), subject to some information being
withheld under the following sections of the OIA:
• 9(2)(f)(iv), to protect the confidentiality of advice tendered by Ministers and officials.
23 Kate Sheppard Place | PO Box 5010 | Wellington 6140 | New Zealand
Tel: +64 4 830 5100 | [email address] | www.civildefence.govt.nz
• 9(2)(g)(i), to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the free and frank
expression of opinions.
• 9(2)(h), to maintain legal professional privilege.
Should our responses to any requests you may make in the future highlight additional
information that may be of interest to you, we encourage you to follow up with us directly.
Part 3
We interpreted Part 3 of your request as seeking a project plan specifically for the discussion
document and/or consultation process. As we noted in our original response, while a draft
project plan exists, it relates to the broader work required to draft and progress the
Emergency Management Bill as a whole and was never finalised. As it does not specifically
address the discussion document or consultation process, we determined it to be out of
scope. This led us to refuse Part 3 of your request under section 18(e) of the Act as no
project plan specifically for the discussion document and/or consultation process exists.
We acknowledge your view that the project plan may still be relevant to your request,
however, and are happy to release it to you (Item 3 in the attached), subject to some
information being withheld under the following sections of the OIA:
• 9(2)(f)(iv), to protect the confidentiality of advice tendered by Ministers and officials.
• 9(2)(g)(i), to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the free and frank
expression of opinions.
In making our decision, NEMA have considered the public interest considerations in section
9(1) of the Act. No public interest has been identified that would be sufficient to outweigh the
reasons for withholding information under the grounds cited above. NEMA acknowledges the
importance of transparency and public participation in the legislative process. However, it is
our view that the need to protect the confidentiality of advice, maintain the free and frank
exchange of views, and safeguard legal professional privilege outweighs the public interest in
disclosure at this stage. The public will have the opportunity to engage with the new Bill
through the select committee process, ensuring transparency and accountability.
Nāku noa, nā,
Sarah Holland
Chief Advisor to the Chief Executive
National Emergency Management Agency
cc:
Office of the Ombudsman
Ombudsman reference: CASE-027401
510068
