Dear Oranga Tamariki—Ministry for Children,

Please provide any documents (reports, briefings, presentations or similar material) exploring the lessons learned (or similar terms) from the development and implementation of the previous Military-style Activity Camps (MACs), and similar programmes, for the purpose of informing the development/implementation of the Military Style Academy (MSA) Pilot.

Please also provide any correspondence (including emails and memos etc) involving kaimahi explicitly involved with the development of the MSA pilot (including external contractors), or senior management (including previous managers), in which they discuss the above material and/or the lessons learned.

To narrow the time frame, I am particularly looking for documents and correspondence between 1 January 2024 and the date this request is received.

I am happy to clarify this request if required.

Yours faithfully,

Ryan Wilkinson

Kia Ora Jarrod,

Thank you for your reply regarding my OIA request (OIA-CE-2025-02986).

While I understand that this request would require searching through a reasonable amount of information, I consider the 30 working day extension to be excessive and unreasonable.

If Oranga Tamariki is recording documents and work related emails in accordance with the Public Records Act and internal policy, then the documents and communications should be filed appropriately and easily to narrow down the ones I am specifically requesting.

However, as the documents themselves should be easy to find. I would be willing for this request to be divided into two parts. The first part related to: "documents (reports, briefings, presentations or similar material) exploring the lessons learned (or similar terms) from the development and implementation of the previous Military-style Activity Camps (MACs), and similar programmes, for the purpose of informing the development/implementation of the Military Style Academy (MSA) Pilot."

This part should be easy to respond too and not require a large extension.

The second part " any correspondence (including emails and memos etc) involving kaimahi explicitly involved with the development of the MSA pilot (including external contractors), or senior management (including previous managers), in which they discuss the above material and/or the lessons learned" could be responded afterwards within a reasonable extension.

Also, I would like to remind the Oranga Tamariki, that while it may be reasonable to extend under s15A(1)(a) due to "the request is for a large quantity of official information or necessitates a search through a large quantity of information and meeting the original time limit would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the Ministry", this extension should be based solely on the work required to complete the request and can not be due to Oragna Tamariki workload pressures or any reporting timelines.
https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/reso...

I am also happy to discuss other options. However, if I do not receive a response within 5 working days, I will assume an unwillingness to discuss other options and will make a complaint to the Ombudsman.

Ngā mihi,
Ryan Wilkinson

Kia Ora,

Thank you for your reply and considering another approach in responding to my request.

Your proposal and timeframes seem reasonable and fair.

Thank you.

Ngā mihi
Ryan

Kia Ora,

Thank you for the information provided in tranche one of your response to my OIA request (OIA-CE-2025-02986).

However the documents contain a large amount of information that is redacted, and I would like to clarify the rationale for these, before (if need) raising this with the Ombudsman.

1. The Goodfeatures section of the Impact Lab report is redacted under s9(2)b(ii) to " protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information". Could you please clarify the rationale for this. While I understand that the Goodfeatures are particular to impact lab, there are many publicly available reports from ImpactLab with the Goodfeatures unredacted - some of which tackle controversial issues. For example:
Better Start Literacy Approach
https://www.canterbury.ac.nz/content/dam...
Pae Aronui
https://visionwest.org.nz/wp-content/upl...
Meridian Energy Energy Wellbeing Programme
https://www.meridianenergy.co.nz/public/...
Yellow Brick Road Family and Whanau Support
https://yellowbrickroad.org.nz/wp-conten...
ACC Live Stronger For Longer
https://www.livestronger.org.nz/assets/2...
Gandhi Nivas
https://gandhinivas.nz/assets/ImpactLab-...

So please clarify exactly what about the the GoodFeatures in Military Boot Camp Literature review outweigh the public interest? In considering this I would referring to the Ombudsman's guide to this section, including:

"Put simply, the test under section 9(2)(b)(ii) is whether release of the information at issue
would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the third party’s commercial position. The third
party must be either the supplier or the subject of the information.
A mere assertion of prejudice will not be sufficient; nor will vague and unsubstantiated
references to ‘commercial sensitivity’ or ‘confidentiality’. Agencies must be able to:
1. demonstrate that the third party has a commercial position; and
2. explain how release of the information at issue would be likely unreasonably to prejudice that position. "
https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/site...

2. An email from Joshua Fransen on behalf of Tusha Penny sent on 7 March 2024, Subject: Military Academy Delivery Team, the body is fully redacted under s9(2)(g)(ii): to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the protection of such Ministers, members of organisations, officers, and employees from improper pressure or harassment". (Notably most of the recipients are not redacted).
As before please clarify exactly why the entire body of the email is redacted. Noting that "“Improper pressure or harassment” is something more than ill considered or irritating criticism or unwanted publicity. It is a course of conduct that has such an effect on the person against whom it is directed that he or she is unable to perform his or her duties effectively and hence the conduct of public affairs is at risk."
Once again I refer to the Ombudsman's guides and procedure, including:
"Always proceed on the basis that the information requested “shall be made available
unless there is good reason for withholding it.”
1. Will release of the information requested be likely to lead to the improper pressure or harassment of an identifiable person?
2. Will the effects of such improper pressure or harassment have a detrimental impact upon the effective conduct of public affairs?
3. Assess how likely it is that the disclosure of the requested information would cause the predicted prejudice or harm to occur. Is the predicted prejudice so likely to occur that it is “necessary” to withhold the information.
If you can establish a link between the improper pressure or harassment that is reasonably anticipated if the information is released, and a resulting detrimental impact upon the effective conduct of public affairs, then section 9(2)(g)(ii) may apply.
You should then consider whether there are any public interest considerations, in terms of section 9(1), favouring release which outweigh the need to withhold.
4. Identify any considerations favouring disclosure of the information.
5. In light of such considerations, is there a public interest in disclosure of the specific information requested?
6. Consider whether, in the circumstances of the case, the public interest in disclosure of the information, in whole or in part, outweighs the need to withhold the information.
If so, release sufficient information to meet the public interest in disclosure.
If not, advise the requester of the decision to withhold"
https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/site...

3. Two slides of the NZDF presentation have been fully redacted under: s9(2)(g)(i) "to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the free and frank expression of opinions by or between or to Ministers of the Crown or members of an organisation or officers and employees of any public service agency or organisation in the course of their duty" and
s9(2)(k) "to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage".

The latter includes redacting the title of the slide.
Once again, please clarify the need for these otherwise "unclassified" sections to be withheld, and make reference to the Ombudsman's guide
For example:
"As noted above (see Advice by officials to Government), officials are expected to be impartial and robust when giving advice, and not easily deterred from expressing their views by the possibility of future disclosure."
https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/site...

For s9(2)(K) the improper gain from information form the NZDF on training with regards to Military style Youth Academies seems ...unusual.
"In particular, an agency must be able to demonstrate
that:
 the information will confer an advantage or gain if released; and,
 that advantage or gain would be improper."

"1. Decide whether the information, if released, could be used to obtain a gain or advantage.
2. Decide whether that gain or advantage would be improper.
3. Assess how likely it is that the disclosure of the requested information would result in an improper gain or advantage."
https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/site...

Once again that you for the information you have provided and I appreciate the additional clarity for the grounds for withholding the information. Please also provide careful consideration when withholding information for the tranche two information.

Ngā mihi,

Ryan Wilkinson