Governance-level information on veteran-support organisations and sector mapping
SPENCER JONES made this Official Information request to New Zealand Defence Force
The request was refused by New Zealand Defence Force.
From: SPENCER JONES
Dear New Zealand Defence Force, Veterans’ Affairs NZ,
Kia ora,
Under the Official Information Act 1982, I request the following governance-level information held by Veterans’ Affairs New Zealand.
This request follows confirmation from Charities Services that there is no structured beneficiary classification identifying “veteran-focused” charities within the Charities Register.
This request seeks only existing documents or confirmation of non-existence. No new collation, data creation, or manual compilation is required.
1. Curated or Recognised Veteran-Support Organisations
Please provide:
1.1 Any list, register, referral directory, internal dataset, or maintained record held by Veterans’ Affairs NZ that identifies charities or non-government organisations that support military veterans and/or their families.
1.2 Any criteria, definitions, or inclusion standards used to determine whether an organisation is recognised as supporting veterans.
If no curated list, directory, or dataset exists, please confirm that explicitly.
2. Mapping and Gap Analysis (Post-2014)
Please provide any existing:
* Reports
* Briefings
* Mapping exercises
* Gap analyses
* Sector capability reviews
produced since 1 July 2014 (commencement of the Veterans’ Support Act 2014) that assess:
* The availability of non-statutory veteran support organisations in New Zealand;
* Geographic coverage gaps;
* Service-type gaps (e.g., housing, rehabilitation, mental health, employment transition);
* Overlap or duplication with statutory services.
If no such assessments exist, please confirm that explicitly.
3. Cross-Agency Coordination
Please provide any existing documents describing coordination between Veterans’ Affairs NZ and any of the following in identifying, mapping, or supporting veteran-focused charities:
* Charities Services (DIA)
* Ministry of Social Development
* Health New Zealand
* Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association (RSA)
* Or other public agencies
If coordination occurs informally only and no formal documentation exists, please confirm that explicitly.
4. Beneficiary Classification Advocacy
Please confirm whether Veterans’ Affairs NZ has ever:
* Recommended the creation of a structured “veteran” beneficiary classification within the Charities Register; or
* Considered such a proposal.
If documentation exists (including internal advice, briefing notes, or correspondence), please provide copies.
If no such consideration has occurred, please confirm that explicitly.
This request is limited to existing governance-level documentation or confirmation of non-existence.
Kind regards,
Spencer Jones
From: Ministerial Services
New Zealand Defence Force
Good morning Spencer Jones
Your request below has been received and a decision on your request will be provided as soon as possible and no later than 11 March 2026. Responses to requests for information that are considered to be in the wider public interest will be published on the New Zealand Defence Force website (www.nzdf.mil.nz).
Regards
Corporate and Ministerial Services
Office of the Chief of Defence Force
New Zealand Defence Force | Te Ope Kātua o Aotearoa
www.nzdf.mil.nz
-----Original Message-----
From: SPENCER JONES [mailto:[FOI #33697 email]]
Sent: Wednesday, 11 February 2026 7:22 p.m.
To: Ministerial Services <[NZDF request email]>
Subject: Official Information request - Governance-level information on veteran-support organisations and sector mapping
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.
Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If in any doubt, please forward the email to [email address] and then delete the email from your Inbox. Thank you
Dear New Zealand Defence Force, Veterans’ Affairs NZ,
Kia ora,
Under the Official Information Act 1982, I request the following governance-level information held by Veterans’ Affairs New Zealand.
This request follows confirmation from Charities Services that there is no structured beneficiary classification identifying “veteran-focused” charities within the Charities Register.
This request seeks only existing documents or confirmation of non-existence. No new collation, data creation, or manual compilation is required.
1. Curated or Recognised Veteran-Support Organisations
Please provide:
1.1 Any list, register, referral directory, internal dataset, or maintained record held by Veterans’ Affairs NZ that identifies charities or non-government organisations that support military veterans and/or their families.
1.2 Any criteria, definitions, or inclusion standards used to determine whether an organisation is recognised as supporting veterans.
If no curated list, directory, or dataset exists, please confirm that explicitly.
2. Mapping and Gap Analysis (Post-2014)
Please provide any existing:
* Reports
* Briefings
* Mapping exercises
* Gap analyses
* Sector capability reviews
produced since 1 July 2014 (commencement of the Veterans’ Support Act 2014) that assess:
* The availability of non-statutory veteran support organisations in New Zealand;
* Geographic coverage gaps;
* Service-type gaps (e.g., housing, rehabilitation, mental health, employment transition);
* Overlap or duplication with statutory services.
If no such assessments exist, please confirm that explicitly.
3. Cross-Agency Coordination
Please provide any existing documents describing coordination between Veterans’ Affairs NZ and any of the following in identifying, mapping, or supporting veteran-focused charities:
* Charities Services (DIA)
* Ministry of Social Development
* Health New Zealand
* Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association (RSA)
* Or other public agencies
If coordination occurs informally only and no formal documentation exists, please confirm that explicitly.
4. Beneficiary Classification Advocacy
Please confirm whether Veterans’ Affairs NZ has ever:
* Recommended the creation of a structured “veteran” beneficiary classification within the Charities Register; or
* Considered such a proposal.
If documentation exists (including internal advice, briefing notes, or correspondence), please provide copies.
If no such consideration has occurred, please confirm that explicitly.
This request is limited to existing governance-level documentation or confirmation of non-existence.
Kind regards,
Spencer Jones
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #33697 email]
Is [NZDF request email] the wrong address for Official Information requests to New Zealand Defence Force? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended
for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not
necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force.
If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or
distribute this message or the information in it.
If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone
the sender immediately.
hide quoted sections
From: Ministerial Services
New Zealand Defence Force
Good afternoon
Please find attached the response to your request for information.
Regards
Corporate and Ministerial Services
Office of the Chief of Defence Force
New Zealand Defence Force
www.nzdf.mil.nz
-----Original Message-----
From: SPENCER JONES [mailto:[FOI #33697 email]]
Sent: Wednesday, 11 February 2026 7:22 p.m.
To: Ministerial Services <[NZDF request email]>
Subject: Official Information request - Governance-level information on veteran-support organisations and sector mapping
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.
Do not follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If in any doubt, please forward the email to [email address] and then delete the email from your Inbox. Thank you
Dear New Zealand Defence Force, Veterans’ Affairs NZ,
Kia ora,
Under the Official Information Act 1982, I request the following governance-level information held by Veterans’ Affairs New Zealand.
This request follows confirmation from Charities Services that there is no structured beneficiary classification identifying “veteran-focused” charities within the Charities Register.
This request seeks only existing documents or confirmation of non-existence. No new collation, data creation, or manual compilation is required.
1. Curated or Recognised Veteran-Support Organisations
Please provide:
1.1 Any list, register, referral directory, internal dataset, or maintained record held by Veterans’ Affairs NZ that identifies charities or non-government organisations that support military veterans and/or their families.
1.2 Any criteria, definitions, or inclusion standards used to determine whether an organisation is recognised as supporting veterans.
If no curated list, directory, or dataset exists, please confirm that explicitly.
2. Mapping and Gap Analysis (Post-2014)
Please provide any existing:
* Reports
* Briefings
* Mapping exercises
* Gap analyses
* Sector capability reviews
produced since 1 July 2014 (commencement of the Veterans’ Support Act 2014) that assess:
* The availability of non-statutory veteran support organisations in New Zealand;
* Geographic coverage gaps;
* Service-type gaps (e.g., housing, rehabilitation, mental health, employment transition);
* Overlap or duplication with statutory services.
If no such assessments exist, please confirm that explicitly.
3. Cross-Agency Coordination
Please provide any existing documents describing coordination between Veterans’ Affairs NZ and any of the following in identifying, mapping, or supporting veteran-focused charities:
* Charities Services (DIA)
* Ministry of Social Development
* Health New Zealand
* Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association (RSA)
* Or other public agencies
If coordination occurs informally only and no formal documentation exists, please confirm that explicitly.
4. Beneficiary Classification Advocacy
Please confirm whether Veterans’ Affairs NZ has ever:
* Recommended the creation of a structured “veteran” beneficiary classification within the Charities Register; or
* Considered such a proposal.
If documentation exists (including internal advice, briefing notes, or correspondence), please provide copies.
If no such consideration has occurred, please confirm that explicitly.
This request is limited to existing governance-level documentation or confirmation of non-existence.
Kind regards,
Spencer Jones
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #33697 email]
Is [NZDF request email] the wrong address for Official Information requests to New Zealand Defence Force? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended
for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not
necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force.
If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or
distribute this message or the information in it.
If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone
the sender immediately.
hide quoted sections
SPENCER JONES left an annotation ()
Public Annotation (Follow-on) — Consolidated Veteran Governance Gap Heat Map (OIA-2026-5662 + OIA-2026-5663)
This follow-on annotation consolidates what two recent NZDF/Veterans’ Affairs OIA refusals collectively establish about system governance visibility for veteran navigation and the non-statutory support sector.
A. What the two refusals collectively assert (the “documentary absence” pattern)
OIA-2026-5662 (Veteran navigation outside entitlements, 2019–present) was refused under s18(e) on the basis that no relevant information exists, with the agency position framed around a strict statutory remit under the Veterans’ Support Act 2014. 
OIA-2026-5663 (Sector mapping / charity ecosystem governance, post-2014) was also refused in full under s18(e), asserting that VANZ does not hold:
• any curated list/directory/dataset of veteran-support organisations,
• any post-2014 mapping / gap analysis of the veteran charity sector,
• any cross-agency coordination documentation (beyond pointing to a published MoU with RNZRSA),
• any records of advocating for a “veteran beneficiary classification” in the Charities Register. 
Taken together, these two outcomes indicate a consistent “governance visibility gap” proposition: if it relates to navigation outside statutory entitlements or mapping the non-statutory support ecosystem, the records are asserted not to exist within VANZ/NZDF holdings.
⸻
B. Heat Map — where governance appears documented vs absent
This heat map is a structured way of recording what the OIA outcomes imply, and what is publicly evidenced elsewhere.
1) Navigation outside statutory entitlements (2019–present)
• VANZ internal briefings / advice / risk assessments: ABSENT (asserted) — s18(e) refusal. 
• Ministerial / Cabinet interface material: UNKNOWN / TO BE TESTED — because Ministerial response-to-Paterson papers and other releases exist in the wider system, even if VANZ claims no internal navigation papers. 
Heat level: HIGH (core governance function unclear).
2) Sector mapping of veteran-support organisations (post-2014)
• Curated list / directory / dataset: ABSENT (asserted) — s18(e). 
• Mapping exercises / gap analyses / sector capability reviews: ABSENT (asserted) — s18(e), framed as general review.” 
Heat level: HIGH (system-level visibility reportedly not held).
3) Cross-agency coordination (Chari ealth NZ, others)
• Formal coordination documents: ABSENT (asserted) — s18(e) where the request concerns other agencies/organisations. 
• RNZRSA relationship: DOCUMENTED (public) — MoU is publicly available, and VANZ cites it. 
Heat level: MED-HIGH (one documented partnership exists, broader coordination picture unclear).
4) Governance engagement via VAB (Veterans’ Advisory Board)
• VAB visibility of gaps / signposting / “front door” navigation issues: PARTIALLY DOCUMENTED ELSEWHERE (public releases exist relating to VAB materials and veteran-policy context), but not confirmed within these two OIAs. 
Heat level: MED-HIGH (governance oversight may exist, but not visible through VANZ OIA framing so far).
5) Paterson Report and “review/operation of the Act” positioning
• VANZ responses repeatedly frame navigation/mapping work as something that would occur only as part of a government-directed review, even though Paterson-response progress and recommendations are publicly documented in the wider system. 
Heat level: MED (policy-level materials exist; operational/implementation visibility remains contested).
⸻
C. What is structurally significant here (non-adversarial statement)
The structural significance is not that a statutory agency has a defined remit — that is expected.
The structural significance is that, if the OIA refusals are accurate, then the veteran-support ecosystem appears to lack (within VANZ holdings) documented governance artifacts for:
• navigation outside entitlements,
• systematic identification of non-statutory sector capability and coverage gaps,
• cross-agency coordination frameworks beyond one published MoU.
That creates a “handover boundary” risk: veterans may experience navigation outcomes driven by informal networks rather than documented system design.
⸻
D. What happens next (controlled, evidence-led)
Because these refusals rely on s18(e) (non-existence), the next logical steps are targeted “system-location tests”:
1. VAB-targeted request (minutes/briefings on sector mapping, referral, navigation gaps).
2. Ministerial interface request (briefings/advice to the Minister for Veterans on navigation/sector coordination).
3. If refusals repeat, a search adequacy pathway becomes clearer.
This is a governance transparency exercise intended to establish where (if anywhere) the system’s navigation and sector-mapping functions are formally recorded.
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence (note: this contains the same information already available above).
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid requests for Official Information (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this request
SPENCER JONES left an annotation ()
Public Annotation – Governance Implications of s18(e) Refusal
This request has been refused in full under section 18(e) of the Official Information Act on the basis that no relevant information exists .
The refusal does not rely on withholding grounds.
It asserts that:
• No curated list of veteran-support organisations exists;
• No sector mapping or gap analysis has been undertaken;
• No cross-agency coordination documentation exists (beyond a published MOU with RNZRSA);
• No consideration has occurred regarding structured beneficiary classification within the Charities Register.
The structural significance of this response is not procedural, but architectural.
If accurate, the response indicates that:
• Veterans’ Affairs New Zealand does not maintain a documented overview of the non-statutory veteran-support sector;
• No recorded governance-level assessment of geographic or service-type gaps has been undertaken since the commencement of the Veterans’ Support Act 2014;
• Coordination beyond statutory entitlements is not formally documented.
This does not imply wrongdoing.
However, it raises governance clarity questions:
• Where within the veteran-support ecosystem is sector visibility maintained?
• How are referral boundaries defined in the absence of documented mapping?
• Is navigation outside statutory entitlements treated as informal practice rather than structured oversight?
The response relies heavily on mandate boundaries to explain non-existence of records. Mandate limitation and documentary absence are not identical propositions.
This annotation records the refusal as a governance data point.
Further targeted requests will clarify whether sector oversight has been considered at the Veterans’ Advisory Board or Ministerial interface levels
Link to this