OIA Update – NZDF Response: Absence of Advice on Non-Statutory Veteran Support

Request:
https://fyi.org.nz/request/33888

Response:

Summary of Decision

The New Zealand Defence Force has refused core parts of this request under section 18(e) of the Official Information Act, stating that:

> “no advice or information on the matters you have raised has been identified” (page 2)

What Was Requested

This request sought ministerial-level material (since 2019) relating to:

• veteran navigation and referral pathways outside statutory entitlements
• interaction with:
- Veterans’ Advisory Board
- charities and community organisations
- mainstream government agencies
• identification of:
- service gaps
- unmet need
- coordination issues

NZDF Position

NZDF’s response is based on two key assertions:

1. Mandate limitation
- Veterans’ Affairs responsibilities are described as “clearly defined”
- non-statutory support is treated as outside scope of responsibility

2. Non-existence of information
- no ministerial advice or records identified on the requested topics
- request refused under s18(e) (information does not exist)

Critical Policy Signal

If accepted at face value, this response implies:

> No formal advice has been provided to Ministers on non-statutory veteran support gaps, navigation issues, or unmet need since at least 2019

This has broader implications:

• issues outside statutory entitlements may not be systematically escalated
• cross-sector coordination (government ↔ community) may lack formal policy visibility
• potential service gaps may exist without structured reporting to Ministers

Paterson Report – Limited Disclosure

NZDF confirms:

• some recommendations were previously referenced
• underlying advice has not been released
• justification:
- not directly relevant
- or outside scope

No supporting documents were provided.

Process Transparency Concerns

The response does not explain how the conclusion was reached.

No detail is provided on:

• systems searched (e.g. email, document systems, ministerial briefings)
• search terms or methodology
• business units or staff consulted
• whether historical or archived material was included

Legal Context

Under the Official Information Act:

• section 18(e) requires reasonable steps to determine whether information exists
• agencies must base decisions on actual searches, not assumptions

A conclusion that information does not exist typically requires:

- identification of relevant systems
- engagement with appropriate custodians
- reasonable search methodology

None of this is described in the response.

Mandate vs Records

The response relies heavily on the concept of “mandate”.

However:

> the absence of a formal mandate does not necessarily mean that records, discussions, or advice do not exist

Examples could include:

• cross-agency briefings
• ministerial correspondence
• implementation discussions
• informal or exploratory advice

Behavioural Warning

NZDF additionally states:

• the requester has submitted a “significantly disproportionate” number of requests
• future requests may be refused under section 18(h) (information already provided)

Interpretation

This introduces a secondary issue:

> the response shifts from a purely information-based assessment to commentary on requester behaviour

While noted, this does not affect the legal requirement to properly assess each request.

Key Issue

At the centre of this response is a single, testable claim:

> No information exists on ministerial advice regarding non-statutory veteran support gaps

The robustness of this claim depends on:

• how thoroughly records were searched
• whether all relevant systems and document types were considered

Current Status

• Request: refused under section 18(e)
• No substantive documents released
• Basis: information asserted not to exist

Next Steps

Potential next steps include:

• seeking clarification on:
- search methodology
- systems and records examined
- scope of enquiries undertaken

• requesting more specific material (e.g. particular reports or timeframes)

• considering review by the Ombudsman

Why This Matters

This request goes beyond a single dataset.

It raises a broader question:

> How are gaps in veteran support outside statutory entitlements identified, recorded, and communicated to decision-makers?

The response suggests that:

• either such issues are not formally documented
• or existing records have not been identified through the current process

Both scenarios have implications for transparency and oversight.