Dear Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet,
Kia ora,
Under the Official Information Act 1982, I request:

Any formal mechanism, framework, or process by which ministers receive advice on the cross-portfolio mortality or health impacts of economic, fiscal, or monetary policy decisions prior to those decisions being taken or confirmation that no such mechanism exists.
Any Cabinet Office guidance, circular, or directive requiring agencies to assess potential mortality or health system impacts when developing policy advice for Cabinet consideration.
Any instance since October 2023 in which a Cabinet paper, regulatory impact statement, or policy briefing has included an assessment of potential mortality impacts arising from economic policy settings including but not limited to fiscal tightening, benefit conditionality changes, or housing affordability measures.

The process by which the Policy Project or DPMC ensures that policy advice reaching ministers reflects cross-portfolio impacts specifically where a decision in one portfolio (e.g., Finance) foreseeably increases demand or harm in another (e.g., Health).
Any analysis, briefing, or report commissioned or received by DPMC regarding the relationship between economic conditions (unemployment, benefit sanctions, monetary tightening) and mortality or suicide rates in New Zealand.

Whether any long-term insights briefing produced under Schedule 6, clauses 8-9 of the Public Service Act 2020 has addressed the mortality or health system implications of economic policy settings.

What mechanism exists for ensuring that the stewardship obligations under sections 12 and 52 of the Public Service Act 2020 — specifically the requirement to provide advice on the "long-term implications of policies" and to "proactively promote stewardship" — are met in relation to cross-portfolio mortality impacts.

If no mechanism described in items 1, 2, 4, or 7 exists, confirmation that ministers are currently making economic policy decisions without systematic advice on whether those decisions are likely to increase deaths.

I make this request in the context of the following documented findings:
Health New Zealand has confirmed in writing (OIA response HNZ00106546) that it does not model whether economic policy drives mental health demand, does not coordinate with the Reserve Bank on health impacts of monetary policy changes, and excludes economic modelling from demand forecasting.
Statistics New Zealand has confirmed (response dated 5 March 2026) that the Integrated Data Infrastructure contains the data linkages necessary to analyse correlations between economic conditions and mortality mortality records linked to benefit receipt via the IDI Spine, employment status via the Employment Spells module but identified only academic research projects using this infrastructure. No government-commissioned analysis was identified.
Treasury hosted Professor Tony Blakely's presentation of the NZ Census-Mortality Study the largest census-mortality record linkage study in the English-speaking world which directly modelled the mortality effects of income redistribution using NZ data. This research was presented to Treasury as a guest lecture. Despite this, no equivalent analysis of Treasury's own policy settings appears to have been commissioned.
The pattern documented across these agencies is consistent: the data infrastructure exists, the analytical methodology is established, academic researchers are doing the work but no government agency has been tasked with answering the question "do our economic policy decisions correlate with people dying?"
If no cross-portfolio mortality impact mechanism exists within the Cabinet advice system, that is the finding I am documenting. It means ministers are setting fiscal and monetary policy without being advised that historical NZ data shows low-income mortality at approximately twice the rate of high-income mortality, that Māori mortality ratios increased within three years of the 1984 economic reforms, and that 617 New Zealanders died by suspected suicide in the most recent reporting year disproportionately Māori, disproportionately young, disproportionately low-income.
Section 52 of the Public Service Act 2020 requires chief executives to support their Minister to act as a good steward of the public interest, including by providing advice on the long-term implications of policies. If no chief executive is providing advice on the mortality implications of economic policy, that obligation is not being met and ministers are making life-and-death decisions without the information they need.
If any information is to be withheld, please specify the grounds under the OIA for each withheld item. I am not requesting policy advice or free and frank opinions I am requesting confirmation of whether specific mechanisms, processes, and analyses exist.
If this request requires substantial collation or research, please contact me to discuss narrowing the scope before refusing under section 18(f).
I expect a response within 20 working days as required by section 15 of the Act.
I request fee waiver or reduction in the public interest. This request concerns whether ministers receive adequate advice before making decisions that foreseeably affect mortality rates. There is no higher public interest than whether the government's own advice system accounts for whether its decisions kill people.
Ngā mihi,