Dear New Zealand Transport Agency,

I request the following information:
1. Requirements, conditions, and bonds for protest/march events on the Auckland Harbour Bridge
For each of the following events, please provide:

Whether organisers were required to submit an application or obtain approval from Waka Kotahi
Any conditions, criteria, or requirements communicated to organisers
Whether a bond or financial security was required, and if so, the amount
Whether a Traffic Management Plan was required
Any other compliance requirements imposed

The events are:

(a) The Toitū te Tiriti hikoi that crossed the Auckland Harbour Bridge in November 2024
(b) Any Gaza/Palestine-related protest or march that crossed or occupied the Auckland Harbour Bridge during 2024-2025
(c) The proposed "Kiwi Patriots" / Destiny Church march across the Auckland Harbour Bridge planned for 2025/2026

2. Internal communications and deliberations
For each of the three events/proposed events listed above, please provide:

All internal emails, memos, briefings, or other correspondence discussing the event
Any communications between Waka Kotahi and NZ Police, Auckland Council, or Auckland Transport regarding the event
Any documents recording the decision-making process for approving, declining, or imposing conditions on these events
Any risk assessments or advice prepared regarding these events

I would appreciate receiving this information in electronic format.
If any part of this request is declined, please provide reasons and cite the specific section(s) of the OIA relied upon.

Yours faithfully,

Richard McMillan

Dear Official Correspondence,

Thank you. Please provide details of the consultations taking place.

Yours sincerely,

Richard McMillan

Request for Internal Review – OIA-20575

Tēnā koutou,
I write to request an internal review of the response to my Official Information Act request (OIA-20575), dated 24 February 2026 and signed by Josh Driscoll, Manager Ministerial Services.
I am not satisfied with the response for the reasons set out below.

Ground 1: Section 18(e) refusal regarding Toitū te Tiriti hikoi communications
NZTA refused to provide internal communications regarding the Toitū te Tiriti hikoi under section 18(e), stating that documents "do not exist or, despite reasonable efforts to locate it, cannot be found."
I do not accept this is an adequate response. The hikoi was a nationally significant event involving tens of thousands of participants crossing the Auckland Harbour Bridge — critical national infrastructure that NZTA is responsible for protecting. It is implausible that NZTA held no internal communications, briefings, risk assessments, or correspondence with partner agencies regarding this event.
The implausibility is heightened by the fact that NZTA was able to locate and provide documents for the Gaza protest and the Destiny Church march. If NZTA routinely documents its involvement with protests on the Harbour Bridge, the absence of any documentation for the hikoi requires explanation.
I request that NZTA, as part of this review:

Confirm what searches were undertaken to locate documents, including which systems were searched, what search terms were used, and which staff were consulted.
Confirm whether NZTA had any involvement whatsoever in planning, approving, facilitating, or responding to the hikoi crossing the Auckland Harbour Bridge.
If NZTA had no involvement, confirm whether this was because:

No application or notification was required from organisers
No application or notification was received from organisers
The event proceeded without NZTA's knowledge or approval
Some other reason

Confirm what record-keeping obligations apply to NZTA's involvement in events or protests on state highways, and whether those obligations were met in this instance.
Provide any communications between NZTA and NZ Police, Auckland Transport, or Auckland Council regarding the hikoi, even if NZTA's internal records are incomplete.

If genuinely no documents exist, this is itself significant information that speaks to differential treatment of protest events — which is a matter of considerable public interest.

Ground 2: Section 18(d) refusal regarding requirements, conditions, and bonds
NZTA refused my request for information about the specific requirements, conditions, and bonds applied to each of the three events, citing section 18(d) on the basis that this information is "publicly available" on NZTA's website.
This refusal is inadequate. The webpage cited (regarding requests to access the Auckland Harbour Bridge) sets out NZTA's general policy and criteria. It does not answer my request, which asked what requirements were actually applied to each specific event.
General policy and the specific application of that policy are different things. I am seeking to understand:

Whether organisers of each event were required to submit an application
What specific conditions were communicated to each organiser
Whether a bond was required from each organiser, and if so, the amount
Whether a Traffic Management Plan was required from each organiser
What other compliance requirements were imposed on each organiser

This information is not available on NZTA's website. The website does not disclose, for example, whether the Toitū te Tiriti hikoi organisers were required to post a bond, or whether Gaza protest organisers were required to submit a Traffic Management Plan.
I request that NZTA provide this information for each of the three events, or confirm that no such requirements were imposed.

Public interest considerations
There is significant public interest in this information. Public commentary — including statements by protest organisers and media coverage — has alleged that NZTA applies different standards to different protest groups seeking access to the Auckland Harbour Bridge.
Transparency about what requirements were actually applied to each event, and what documentation NZTA holds regarding each event, is necessary to assess whether these allegations have merit. The public has a legitimate interest in knowing whether state agencies apply their policies consistently and without political favouritism.
I submit that any public interest in withholding this information is outweighed by the public interest in transparency and accountability.

Requested outcome
I request that NZTA:

Conduct a more thorough search for documents relating to the Toitū te Tiriti hikoi and provide any documents located, or provide a detailed explanation of why no documents exist.
Provide specific information about the requirements, conditions, and bonds actually applied to each of the three events, rather than directing me to general policy information.
Respond within 20 working days as required by the Act.

If NZTA maintains its position following this review, I intend to refer this matter to the Ombudsman.
Ngā mihi,

Richard