Public Annotation – Search Scope Clarification (OIA-2026-5661)

NZDF declined this request under section 18(e) on the basis that, despite “all reasonable efforts,” no information relevant to the request was located. 

This follow-up does not seek new substantive material. It seeks clarification of the search scope that led to the section 18(e) decision.

The original request concerned whether any Veterans’ Advisory Board–held or Board-provided material since 1 January 2019 addressed:
• visibility of veteran-focused charities or community organisations;
• risks or disadvantages arising from lack of structured signposting;
• prioritisation decisions regarding navigation outside statutory entitlements;
• responsibility boundaries between Veterans’ Affairs NZ, the VAB, and other agencies. 

The response concluded that no such information was located. 

Where a request is declined under section 18(e), the robustness of the search becomes central. In that context, the follow-up asks only for confirmation of:
• which record systems were searched (e.g., EDRMS, shared drives, email archives);
• whether VAB secretariat records were included;
• whether Ministerial Services files relating to VAB reporting were searched;
• whether risk registers or governance dashboards were examined;
• the date parameters and search terms applied.

This clarification is important because:

1️⃣ Mandate and record-existence are distinct issues.
An agency may determine that certain activities fall outside statutory remit. That does not necessarily determine whether governance discussions, risk considerations, or prioritisation notes were ever documented.

2️⃣ Section 18(e) relies on reasonable search.
Where “no information exists” is asserted, understanding the scope of the search assists transparency and public confidence in the decision.

3️⃣ Governance-level visibility is the subject of the request.
The request did not seek operational case records or creation of new material. It sought existing governance documentation, if any. Clarifying how the search was conducted ensures that the absence of records (if confirmed) is properly established.

This annotation records the follow-up as a procedural clarification step, focused solely on search adequacy. The substantive position taken in OIA-2026-5661 remains unchanged pending that clarification. 

I will update this thread once NZDF responds to the search-scope request.

Public Annotation – Search Scope Clarification

This request asked NZDF to explain how the search was conducted after an earlier refusal under section 18(e) of the Official Information Act (information not found despite reasonable efforts).

The NZDF response confirms that Veterans’ Affairs staff conducted a manual review of secretariat records covering communications between Veterans’ Affairs and the Veterans’ Advisory Board (VAB). The review included older material stored on a network drive and more recent records in the NZDF Defence Document Management System. The Chair of the VAB was also asked for any relevant information or comment. No specific search terms were used during the review. 

The response therefore indicates that the search focused primarily on board secretariat records, which provide administrative support to the VAB as well as related entities including the Veterans’ Health Advisory Panel, the Veterans’ Entitlements Appeal Board, and the Veterans’ Service Review Panel. 

For researchers and investigators examining governance of veterans’ policy in New Zealand, this distinction is important. Secretariat files generally contain meeting records, correspondence, and administrative material relating to the board itself. However, records relating to policy development, ministerial advice, risk management, or programme oversight may sometimes exist in other parts of government record systems.

The response also notes that reports to the Minister covering the Board’s work are publicly available through the Veterans’ Affairs website. 

Readers interested in the broader policy environment may therefore wish to examine:

• Veterans’ Affairs annual reports
• Veterans’ Advisory Board annual reports to the Minister
• Veterans’ Health Advisory Panel reports
• Cabinet or ministerial briefing papers relating to veterans’ policy.

Taken together, these sources may help reconstruct how advice from veterans’ advisory bodies is considered within the wider government decision-making framework.