Dear The Treasury,

ANNEX: Explanation of Treasury’s Responses (30 June & 7 July 2025)
Re: Requirement for “Due Particularity” under the Official Information Act 1982

1. Purpose of this annex
This annex explains the meaning and effect of Treasury’s procedural responses dated 30 June 2025 and 7 July 2025, which requested clarification of my Official Information Act (OIA) request concerning Estate Probate No.1052 / Native Land Court Probate No.1052. It clarifies why Treasury could not process the initial request and how the revised request now satisfies the statutory requirement of “due particularity.

2. Treasury’s responses were procedural, not substantive
Treasury did not:
• refuse the request
• deny the existence of records
• dispute Rule 426H
• close the matter
Instead, Treasury issued a standard OIA clarification notice, advising that the request could not be processed because it did not meet the requirement of due particularity under s 12 and s 15 of the OIA.
Treasury’s message was essentially: We cannot identify what information you are requesting.
Please clarify so we can search our systems.”

3. Meaning of “due particularity”
Under the OIA, a requester must describe the information sought clearly enough that the agency can locate it.
This requires one or more of the following: so I understand
A.. Naming the documents
Examples:
• “All Treasury ledger entries relating to Supreme Court of Auckland and the High Court of Auckland Native Land Court Estate Probate No.1052.100(2)e intestacy
• “Any Treasury‑held fiduciary instruments associated with Probate No.1052 Kaupapa act .100(2)e Insurance company's
B. Describing the records
Examples:
• “All correspondence between Treasury and Public Trust regarding Probate No.1052 of the Native Land Court (1865–1891).”
• “Any records of statutory deposits or insurance‑linked holdings connected to Samuel Hami Peti (Probate No.1052).C. Stating the date ranges
Your estate spans multiple statutory eras: 1824 / 1835 / 1865 / 1891 / 1906 / 1909 / 1921 / 1969 / 1970 / 1976 / 2026.
Examples:
• “Records from 1891–2026 relating to Native estates administered under Rule 426H.
• “All Treasury files from 1969–present referencing Estate Probate No.1052.
D. Identifying the subject matter clearly enough for a search
Examples:
• “Native Land Court Code of Civil Procedure Rule 426H jurisdiction.”
• “Statutory deposit pool (1921) and Native Māori policyholder funds.”
• “Estate Probate No.1052 fiduciary administration.”
Without these elements, an agency cannot determine what to search for.so
4. Why the original request did not meet the standard
My initial communication:
• described whakapapa
• described Rule 426H
• described the amendment adding “Hamilton”
• described the estate identifiers
• described my succession under TTWMA 1993 s 100(2)(e)
…but did not specify:
• what documents Treasury should locate
• what records were being requested
• what date ranges applied
• what subject matter Treasury was to search for
From Treasury’s perspective, the message read as a statement, not a request for identifiable information.

This meets the OIA standard and requires Treasury to conduct a full search of:
• fiduciary instruments
• statutory deposits
• insurance‑linked holdings
• Native Māori estate administration records
• inter‑agency correspondence
• historical ledgers and registers
Treasury must now process the request.

6. Relevance to High Court and WAI 1055 proceedings
This annex demonstrates that:
• Treasury did not reject the request
• Treasury did not deny the existence of records
• Treasury simply required clarity

The revised request now compels a full fiduciary search
This supports the evidential chain for:
• fiduciary breach
• Crown oversight failure
• Māori estate misadministration
• succession rights under TTWMA 1993 s 100(2)(e)
• procedural jurisdiction under Rule 426H
• civil justice restoration under WAI 1055
This also aligns with the fiduciary chain involving:

Night A.J.H. Coldicutt LLB Who was the Registrar in the Supreme Court and the High Court — New Zealand Insurance Company Trust security £7,500 on Eden Grove Bond paper of Great Britain Parliament, with the common seal of the New Zealand Insurance Company Trust, acting under Codes of Civil Procedure 426H, 397, 517, 531(c), 531(b), 531(m), Probate No.1052 of the Native Land Court of Parliament New Zealand.
This historical fiduciary context strengthens the requirement for full disclosure.

Yours faithfully,

Michael Peti