Dear New Zealand Transport Agency,

This is a request for information made under the Official Information Act 1982.

I request the following information held by Waka Kotahi / NZ Transport Agency relating to public statements made about the safety risks of protests and pedestrian access on the Auckland Harbour Bridge.

This request arises from statements made by NZTA and NZ Police, reported in national media, asserting that proposed protest activity on the Auckland Harbour Bridge posed unacceptable safety and structural risks. Refer NZ Herald:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auckland/a...

1. Safety and Risk Assessments

Please provide copies of all risk assessments, engineering reports, technical analyses, modelling, expert advice, memoranda, briefings, or internal assessments relied upon by NZTA in forming the view that protest activity on the Auckland Harbour Bridge is unsafe, including but not limited to:

a. Assessments relating to pedestrian loading, vibration, oscillation, sway, or dynamic loading of the bridge and clip-on structures
b. Assessments addressing structural integrity, fatigue, or long-term damage risk
c. Any comparative analysis between protest activity and other permitted events involving pedestrians or vehicles
d. The dates, authors, qualifications, and commissioning instructions for each assessment

2. Decision-Making and Risk Thresholds

Please provide:

a. The criteria, standards, guidelines, policies, or thresholds used by NZTA to determine whether pedestrian or protest activity on the Auckland Harbour Bridge presents an unacceptable safety risk
b. Any internal decision records, approval notes, or risk matrices applied when declining permission for protest activity
c. Any documentation distinguishing between “controlled” and “uncontrolled” events, and how this distinction is defined and applied

3. Permits, Applications, and Comparators (1 January 2024 – present)

For the period 1 January 2024 to the date of this request, please provide:

a. A list of all applications, requests, or notifications received by NZTA seeking access to the Auckland Harbour Bridge or motorway network for protests, marches, demonstrations, convoys, or public events
b. For each, whether approval was granted, declined, or not required
c. The reasons for approval or refusal and the supporting safety rationale
d. Copies of any permits, conditions, or refusals issued

This includes (but is not limited to) protests, marches, convoys, and major events such as the Auckland Marathon.

4. Auckland Marathon and Other Approved Events

In relation to the Auckland Marathon and any other permitted events involving pedestrian or event access across the Auckland Harbour Bridge, please provide:

a. The risk assessments and safety evaluations relied upon to approve such access
b. Any load, crowd density, or movement modelling undertaken
c. Any post-event safety or structural reviews
d. Any documentation explaining why these events were assessed as acceptable when protest activity was not

5. Communications With Other Agencies

Please provide copies of correspondence, briefings, or joint planning documents between NZTA and:

a. New Zealand Police
b. Auckland Council and/or Auckland Transport

relating to protest activity, enforcement planning, safety risk, or access decisions concerning the Auckland Harbour Bridge.

6. Unauthorised or Unpermitted Activity

Please provide:

a. Records identifying any marches, protests, or events during the last 12 months that proceeded without NZTA approval on or near the Auckland motorway network
b. Any assessments or reports on safety outcomes arising from those events
c. Any guidance or criteria used to determine when enforcement action is recommended or required

Public Interest

There is a strong public interest in transparency where restrictions are placed on freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, particularly where those restrictions are justified on safety grounds. Disclosure of the evidence relied upon by NZTA is necessary to enable informed public scrutiny of whether such restrictions are proportionate, evidence-based, and applied consistently.

Yours faithfully,

John Armstrong

Dear Official Correspondence,

OIA Request – Auckland Harbour Bridge Safety Assessments (18 January 2026)

I refer to my OIA request dated 18 January 2026 regarding safety risk assessments and decision-making relating to protest activity and event approvals on the Auckland Harbour Bridge.

I note that an extension was issued on the final day of the 20 day statutory timeframe dated 16 February 2026, and that you have now advised on 9 March 2026 that the information is still not ready for release.
This is concerning.

The Official Information Act requires that requests be responded to as soon as reasonably practicable, and no later than 20 working days unless a lawful extension is invoked under section 15A. While I acknowledge the extension notice, the Act does not permit extensions simply because an agency has not yet completed its internal processes.

The Ombudsman has been clear that extensions must be used only where strictly necessary — for example where there is a genuinely large volume of information or where consultations are required that cannot reasonably be completed within the original timeframe.

At present, NZTA has:
• taken the full 20 day statutory timeframe before issuing an extension of 15 days.
• now indicated that it is still not ready to release the information, and
• not provided any substantive decision or partial release despite the request containing multiple discrete categories of information.

Given the structure of the request, it would appear entirely feasible to release at least some of the requested material immediately, such as safety risk assessments, policies, or event approval criteria, while any remaining consultations are finalised.
Delaying the release of all information simply because some elements remain under consideration would be inconsistent with the purpose and principles of the Official Information Act.

Accordingly, please:
1. Confirm the precise statutory basis under section 15A relied upon for the extension;
2. Confirm the specific date by which a decision will now be made;
3. Release any information that is already available, rather than withholding the entire request.

Given the clear public interest in understanding the evidential basis relied upon when asserting safety risks relating to protest activity on the Auckland Harbour Bridge, I consider transparency in this matter to be particularly important.

If NZTA is unable to provide a substantive response or immediate partial release, I will refer the matter to the Office of the Ombudsman for investigation of the delay and the handling of this request.

I look forward to your prompt response.

Yours sincerely,

John Armstrong

Dear Official Correspondence,

Thank you for your correspondence regarding this request.

I note the statement that certain documents responsive to this request are expected to be publicly released in mid to late May.

I wish to make it clear that this does not remove the agency’s obligations under the Official Information Act 1982 for this request.

The Act is governed by the principle of availability set out in section 5 of the Official Information Act 1982, which provides that official information must be made available unless there is good reason for withholding it.

This request concerns historic official information and existing records created in the course of public decision-making, including but not limited to risk assessments, modelling, internal communications, approvals, and related documentation. These documents already exist. They are not future documents.

Accordingly, they fall squarely within the scope of information that must be considered for release in response to this request.

While section 18(d) of the Official Information Act allows a request to be refused where the information requested will soon be publicly available, Ombudsman guidance makes clear that this provision must be interpreted reasonably and consistently with the purposes of the Act.

In particular:
• The agency must identify the specific information that will soon be publicly available
• The agency must have a clear and established publication plan
• The information must in fact be available “soon” and not months away.
• Reliance on section 18(d) must not undermine the purpose of the Act, which is to promote the timely availability of official information.

A proposed publication date in mid to late May appears to fall well outside the normal statutory response timeframe contemplated by the Act and raises serious questions as to whether the requirement that information be available “soon” could reasonably be met.

The Ombudsman has also made clear that agencies cannot delay the release of existing information merely because they intend to publish it later as part of a planned release.

Historic documents already in existence should therefore be assessed and released under this OIA request as they presently stand. If any limited information within those documents properly requires withholding under the Act, then the appropriate course is partial release with redactions, rather than deferring the release of the entire document set.

In light of the above, please confirm:
* Whether the documents said to be released in May already exist in final or substantially final form.
* Which specific documents or categories of documents you consider fall within section 18(d).
* The precise planned publication date for those documents.
* The records or decisions establishing the proposed publication plan.
* Whether consideration has been given to releasing those documents now in response to this request.

If the agency ultimately decides to rely on section 18(d) to refuse or delay the release of information, please treat this email as a request for the full reasons for that decision, including the documents evidencing the publication plan and the analysis supporting the view that a release in a few months from now constitutes “soon” within the meaning of the Act.

For the avoidance of doubt, the existence of a future publication plan does not remove the agency’s obligation to process and release historic official information already held at the time of this request.

Yours sincerely,

John Armstrong

Dear Official Correspondence,

I expect a full response to my OIA as per your apology letter which stated on or before 20 March 2026.

A complaint will be made to office of the Ombudsman should you fail to fulfil my request by close of business 20 March 2026.

Yours sincerely,

John Armstrong