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.