Operational Guidance and Search Clarification (Veterans’ Affairs)
SPENCER JONES made this Official Information request to New Zealand Defence Force
Currently waiting for a response from New Zealand Defence Force, they must respond promptly and normally no later than (details and exceptions).
From: SPENCER JONES
Dear New Zealand Defence Force,
Subject: Follow-Up Request – Operational Guidance and Search Clarification (Veterans Affairs).
Tēnā koutou,
I refer to OIA-2026-5662, which was refused under section 18(e) on the basis that no relevant information exists.
To assist clarity and ensure the scope is precise and manageable, I now request the following information only:
⸻
1️⃣ Operational Guidance and Role Definition Documents
Please provide copies of any documents currently held (or held at any time since 1 January 2019) that:
a) Describe, define, or explain the boundaries of Veterans’ Affairs New Zealand’s role in relation to referral or signposting to non-statutory support (including charities, community organisations, or mainstream services);
b) Provide internal guidance to staff regarding how to respond when veterans seek assistance outside statutory entitlements;
c) Describe how staff are instructed to handle enquiries that fall outside eligibility under the Veterans’ Support Act 2014.
This request is confined to operational guidance, manuals, aide-memoires, workflow documents, internal policy notes, or equivalent material. It does not seek the creation of new analysis.
⸻
2️⃣ Records of Engagement with the Veterans’ Advisory Board
Please provide copies of any documents (including emails, briefings, meeting papers, or file notes) since 1 January 2019 that:
a) Record discussions between Veterans’ Affairs and the Veterans’ Advisory Board concerning referral pathways, navigation support, or interaction with non-statutory services;
b) Define or clarify respective roles between VANZ and the Veterans’ Advisory Board regarding veteran support beyond statutory entitlements.
If such material exists only within meeting minutes or briefing packs, provision of the relevant extracts is sufficient.
⸻
3️⃣ Search Description (Search Adequacy Confirmation)
If any part of this request is refused under section 18(e), please provide:
a) A description of the systems searched (e.g., document management systems, email archives, shared drives);
b) The search terms used;
c) The roles or business units consulted.
This is requested to ensure transparency regarding the reasonableness of the search undertaken.
⸻
This request is deliberately confined to documents that either:
• Define operational boundaries; or
• Record actual engagement with governance bodies.
It does not seek expansion of mandate or policy reform material.
Kind regards,
Spencer Jones
Yours faithfully,
SPENCER JONES
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 – Follow-Up Request Focused on Operational Guidance and Search Adequacy
Following the refusal of OIA-2026-5662 under section 18(e) (“information does not exist”), I have submitted a narrower and more precisely framed follow-up request.
The original request sought records discussing responsibility for veteran navigation outside statutory entitlements. The response asserted that, because Veterans’ Affairs New Zealand (VANZ) has no authority to expand beyond the Veterans’ Support Act 2014, no relevant information exists.
Rather than re-arguing the scope of statutory authority, the follow-up request focuses on two objective and verifiable categories of records:
1. Operational Guidance and Role Definition Documents
This includes any internal manuals, workflow documents, staff guidance, aide-memoires, or policy notes that describe:
• The boundaries of VANZ’s referral role;
• How staff are instructed to respond when veterans seek assistance outside statutory entitlements; and
• How enquiries falling outside eligibility are handled in practice.
These are operational governance documents, not policy reform proposals.
2. Records of Engagement with the Veterans’ Advisory Board (VAB)
The request seeks any existing communications, meeting papers, minutes, or briefings that:
• Record discussions about referral pathways or navigation support; or
• Clarify respective roles between VANZ and the VAB in relation to non-statutory support.
This reframing does not expand the scope of the inquiry. It narrows it to document classes that should reasonably exist within any functioning public agency, regardless of whether its statutory mandate is limited.
Importantly, the request also asks that, if section 18(e) is relied upon again, a description of the search undertaken be provided (including systems searched and business units consulted). This ensures transparency about the adequacy of the search process.
The purpose of this follow-up is not adversarial. It is to determine, in a structured and proportionate way:
• Whether operational boundaries are documented;
• Whether referral practice is formally guided;
• Whether engagement with the Veterans’ Advisory Board has been recorded; and
• Whether the earlier refusal reflects genuine absence of records or an overly narrow interpretation of the request.
This clarification keeps the matter focused on governance documentation and search transparency, rather than on questions of legislative reform.
I will await the response within the statutory timeframe.
Link to this