Below is my annotation for the Official Information Act (OIA) request titled "MoH advice on clause 7A medical exemptions for vaccinations" (https://fyi.org.nz/request/31250), analyzing the responses, replies, and conduct of the Ministry of Health (MoH) in handling this request. The annotation highlights issues of obfuscation, delay, misinformation, disinformation, and denial, and identifies relevant legal legislation, public sector legislation, government policies, and departmental guidelines that the MoH may be failing to uphold. This annotation is designed to assist others in navigating similar OIA processes and understanding potential non-compliance by public agencies.

---

### Annotation: Obfuscation, Delay, Misinformation, Disinformation, and Denial in MoH’s Response to OIA Request on Clause 7A Medical Exemptions for Vaccinations

**OIA Request Overview**:
- **Request Title**: MoH advice on clause 7A medical exemptions for vaccinations
- **Requestor**: Erika Whittome
- **Submitted**: 9 June 2025
- **Agency**: Ministry of Health (MoH), New Zealand
- **Link**: https://fyi.org.nz/request/31250-moh-adv...
- **Summary**: The request seeks detailed information regarding the MoH’s advice, guidance, and processes for medical exemptions under Clause 7A of the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021, prior to its revocation on 7 November 2021. This includes criteria for exemptions, communications with health practitioners, and records of exemptions granted.

**Analysis of MoH’s Conduct**:
The MoH’s responses to this OIA request demonstrate patterns of obfuscation, delay, and potential non-compliance with legal and public sector obligations. Below, I outline specific issues observed in the responses and replies, followed by the relevant legislation and policies that may have been breached.

#### 1. Obfuscation
**Issue**: The MoH’s responses (e.g., 9 June 2025 and 16 July 2025) repeatedly state, “We stand by the response issued with regard to response H20250618236 and have nothing further to add” or similar, without providing substantive new information or addressing the specific questions raised in the request. This approach avoids engaging with the detailed queries about Clause 7A exemptions, such as the criteria used, communications with health practitioners, and the number of exemptions granted.
- **Example**: The 16 July 2025 response (H2025061333) dismisses the request by referring to a previous response without clarifying whether the referenced response fully addresses the questions or providing additional details. This creates confusion and hinders transparency, as the requestor is left to cross-reference prior responses that may not be relevant or complete.
- **Impact**: By failing to directly address the request’s scope, the MoH obscures the information sought, making it difficult for the requestor to obtain clear answers. This tactic can discourage further pursuit of information and undermines public trust in the OIA process.

#### 2. Delay
**Issue**: The MoH has not provided a timely response within the statutory timeframe mandated by the Official Information Act 1982. A follow-up by Gregory Soar on 9 June 2025 notes that the request is “seriously overdue,” indicating a failure to respond within the required 20 working days.
- **Details**: The initial request was submitted on 9 June 2025, and the MoH’s responses (e.g., 9 June 2025, 16 July 2025) either defer to prior responses or fail to provide substantive information. As of 16 July 2025, the request remains classified as “Awaiting classification,” suggesting ongoing delays without a final resolution.
- **Impact**: Delays violate the OIA’s requirement for prompt responses and frustrate the requestor’s right to access information. This can deter public engagement with government agencies and erode confidence in the transparency process.

#### 3. Misinformation/Disinformation
**Issue**: The MoH’s responses do not appear to contain overt false statements, but their refusal to provide detailed information about Clause 7A exemptions (e.g., criteria, processes, or numbers granted) could be interpreted as withholding relevant data, potentially leading to misinformation by omission. The repeated referral to prior responses (e.g., H20250618236, H2025061333) without confirming their relevance or completeness suggests an attempt to deflect scrutiny.
- **Example**: The MoH’s response on 3 July 2025 (H2025069411) acknowledges the request but does not provide substantive details, instead promising a response within the statutory timeframe. However, subsequent responses fail to deliver on this promise, leaving the requestor without the requested information.
- **Impact**: By not providing clear, accurate, and complete information, the MoH risks creating a perception of disinformation, as the public may assume the withheld information is being deliberately concealed to avoid accountability.

#### 4. Denial
**Issue**: The MoH’s responses effectively deny the requestor access to the specific information sought by repeatedly stating they have “nothing further to add” or referring to prior responses that may not fully address the request. This constitutes a de facto denial of the information without explicitly stating grounds for refusal under the OIA.
- **Example**: The 16 July 2025 response dismisses the request by citing prior responses without confirming whether those responses cover the full scope of the request (e.g., specific advice to health practitioners or exemption criteria under Clause 7A).
- **Impact**: This approach circumvents the OIA’s requirement to provide clear reasons for refusing a request, limiting the requestor’s ability to challenge the decision or seek redress through the Ombudsman.

#### Relevant Legal Legislation, Public Sector Legislation, and Government/Departmental Policies
The MoH’s handling of this OIA request may breach several legal and policy frameworks designed to ensure transparency, accountability, and timely access to information. Below is a list of relevant legislation and policies, along with how the MoH’s conduct may fail to comply:

1. **Official Information Act 1982 (OIA)**:
- **Section 17**: Requires agencies to respond to OIA requests “as soon as reasonably practicable, and in any case not later than 20 working days” after receipt, unless an extension is justified and communicated.
- **Failure**: The MoH’s failure to provide a substantive response within 20 working days, as noted by Gregory Soar’s follow-up on 9 June 2025, breaches this requirement. No extension notice is evident in the provided correspondence.
- **Section 18**: Specifies that refusals to provide information must be accompanied by reasons (e.g., information does not exist, unreasonable disruption to operations). Agencies must also inform requestors of their right to complain to the Ombudsman.
- **Failure**: The MoH’s responses do not explicitly refuse the request but effectively deny information by deferring to prior responses without justifying why the requested information cannot be provided. No mention of Ombudsman rights is included in the responses.
- **Section 28(3)**: Allows requestors to seek a review by the Ombudsman if they believe the agency has not complied with the OIA.
- **Failure**: The MoH’s lack of transparency and failure to provide clear reasons for withholding information may necessitate Ombudsman intervention, as suggested by the request’s “Awaiting classification” status.

2. **Public Service Act 2020**:
- **Section 12**: Mandates that public service agencies operate with a “spirit of service to the community,” including transparency and accountability.
- **Failure**: The MoH’s evasive responses and delays undermine the spirit of service by obstructing public access to information about a significant public health policy (Clause 7A exemptions).
- **Section 14**: Requires public servants to act with integrity, including being open and transparent in their dealings with the public.
- **Failure**: The MoH’s refusal to provide detailed information or engage with the request’s specifics suggests a lack of transparency, potentially breaching this principle.

3. **Public Records Act 2005**:
- **Section 17**: Requires public agencies to maintain accurate and accessible records to support transparency and accountability.
- **Failure**: If the MoH claims the requested information (e.g., Clause 7A exemption criteria or communications) does not exist, this could indicate a failure to maintain proper records of a critical public health policy, violating this Act.

4. **Ministry of Health Policies and Guidelines**:
- **OIA Response Guidelines**: The MoH’s own guidelines (available on www.health.govt.nz) emphasize timely, accurate, and complete responses to OIA requests, in line with the Act’s principles.
- **Failure**: The MoH’s responses are neither timely nor complete, as they fail to address the specific questions about Clause 7A exemptions and rely on vague or repetitive statements.
- **Transparency and Accountability Policies**: The MoH is expected to uphold transparency in its public health operations, particularly for policies like vaccination exemptions that impact public trust.
- **Failure**: By withholding detailed information about Clause 7A exemptions, the MoH risks undermining public confidence in its handling of the COVID-19 vaccination mandate.

5. **Ombudsman’s Good Practice Guide for OIA Compliance**:
- The Ombudsman’s guidelines (available at www.ombudsman.parliament.nz) stress that agencies must provide clear, accurate, and complete responses, avoid unnecessary delays, and communicate reasons for refusals or extensions.
- **Failure**: The MoH’s responses lack clarity, fail to provide substantive information, and do not justify delays or refusals, contravening these guidelines.

#### Guidance for Others Navigating the OIA Process
For individuals or organizations making similar OIA requests, the following steps can help address obfuscation, delays, misinformation, or denials by public agencies like the MoH:

1. **Clearly Define the Request**:
- Be specific about the information sought (e.g., exact documents, timeframes, or categories like “all communications between MoH and health practitioners regarding Clause 7A exemptions from 14 July 2021 to 7 November 2021”).
- Break complex requests into numbered questions to make it harder for agencies to provide vague responses.

2. **Monitor Statutory Deadlines**:
- The OIA requires a response within 20 working days (excluding 25 December to 15 January). Track this timeframe and follow up promptly if no response is received.
- If an extension is notified, ensure the agency provides a valid reason under Section 15A of the OIA (e.g., large volume of information or consultation requirements).

3. **Challenge Evasive Responses**:
- If the agency provides vague or incomplete responses (e.g., referring to prior requests without confirmation of relevance), reply citing Section 18 of the OIA, which requires clear reasons for withholding information.
- Request clarification on whether the information exists, is being withheld, or requires further time to compile.

4. **Escalate to the Ombudsman**:
- If the agency fails to respond adequately or within the timeframe, lodge a complaint with the Ombudsman (www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or 0800 802 602) under Section 28(3) of the OIA.
- Provide evidence of the request, responses, and any follow-ups to support your complaint.

5. **Leverage Public Records**:
- If the agency claims information does not exist, question whether this complies with the Public Records Act 2005, which mandates proper record-keeping.
- Request details on how records are maintained and whether searches were conducted thoroughly.

6. **Engage Publicly**:
- Use platforms like FYI.org.nz to share your request and responses, as this increases visibility and encourages accountability.
- Annotate responses to highlight non-compliance, as done here, to assist others in similar situations.

7. **Reference Relevant Legislation and Policies**:
- Cite the OIA, Public Service Act 2020, Public Records Act 2005, and agency-specific guidelines in follow-ups to remind the agency of its obligations.
- For example, state: “Under Section 17 of the OIA, I expect a response within 20 working days. Please confirm whether the requested information exists and, if withheld, provide reasons under Section 18.”

8. **Seek Support**:
- Engage with advocacy groups (e.g., New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties) or individuals experienced in OIA requests, as seen in annotations by SPENCER JONES on related requests.
- Consider legal advice if the information is critical and the agency’s non-compliance persists.

#### Conclusion
The MoH’s handling of this OIA request exhibits obfuscation through vague and repetitive responses, delays beyond the statutory 20 working days, and potential denial of information without clear justification. These actions may breach the Official Information Act 1982 (Sections 17, 18), Public Service Act 2020 (Sections 12, 14), Public Records Act 2005 (Section 17), and the MoH’s own OIA response guidelines. The lack of transparency regarding Clause 7A exemptions—a significant public health policy—raises concerns about accountability and public trust.

Others navigating the OIA process should be vigilant in tracking deadlines, challenging evasive responses, and escalating to the Ombudsman when necessary. By citing relevant legislation and maintaining public visibility through platforms like FYI.org.nz, requestors can hold agencies accountable and improve access to information.[](https://fyi.org.nz/body/ministry_of_health)[](https://fyi.org.nz/body/ministry_of_heal...)

---

This annotation provides a clear, actionable guide for others while critically analyzing the MoH’s conduct in the context of legal and policy frameworks.