Dear Ministry for Ethnic Communities,

I am writing to request information under the Official Information Act 1982 relating to the Ethnic Communities Development Fund (ECDF) grant awarded to Asturlab Cultural Centre for the “4 for 40 Stop the Silence Campaign”.

Specifically, I request the following information not already provided in response to OIA 2526-0072:

1. Final Results Report (Withheld Document)

- The date on which the final results report was received by the Ministry.
- All correspondence relating to any requests for clarification, further information, or amendments to that report.
- Any internal assessments, reviews, or commentary on that report.

2. Application of Section 9(2)(ba)(i)

- Any internal communications relating to the decision to withhold the final results report under section 9(2)(ba)(i).
- Any documents setting out the basis on which:

I. an obligation of confidence was considered to exist, and
II. release was considered likely to prejudice the future supply of similar information.

3. Due Diligence – Specific Evidence

-Any documents that record or summarise the Ministry’s assessment of whether the funded activities:

I. involved advocacy, or
II. were intended to influence public opinion.

4. Assessment Timeline and Prioritisation

Any internal records or communications that explain:

I. the timeframe in which this application was assessed and approved, and
II. whether the application was treated as urgent or expedited, and if so, why.
III. how applications are prioritised, including any criteria for urgent or expedited consideration.

5. Assistance to Applicant

- Any internal policies or guidance relating to the provision of advice or assistance to ECDF applicants during the application process.
- Any records indicating whether the assistance provided in this case was considered standard practice.

6. Handling of OIA 2526-0072

- Any internal communications created after receipt of OIA 2526-0072 that relate to:

I. the decision to withhold information, or
II. the scope of information released.

If any part of this request is refused, please specify the grounds for refusal under the Act.

Yours faithfully,

Miguel Angel

Tēnā koe Edward Firth,

I refer to your letter dated 4 May 2026 responding to my Official Information Act request of 25 March 2026.

Your response is not acceptable. It contains clear contradictions, fails to address the substance of my request, and attempts to defend the indefensible. I will set out the problems below in detail.

1. The core contradiction on political advocacy (Part 3)

I specifically asked for any documents recording or summarising the Ministry’s assessment of whether the funded activities involved advocacy or were intended to influence public opinion.

Your response states:

“The Ministry does not hold information that records or summarises the Ministry’s assessment of whether funded activities involved advocacy or intend to influence public opinion. As such, this part of the request is refused under section 18(e)…”

Yet in the very next paragraph you claim the grant “was assessed against the ECDF published purpose, eligibility and funding criteria” and that “the ECDF does not, and is not intended to, support political campaigning or activities outside its published purpose”.

This is irreconcilable. The published criteria prohibit political objectives. You cannot claim the application was properly assessed while simultaneously admitting you have no records whatsoever of considering the most obvious and central issue — whether this was political advocacy. That is not a minor oversight. It is a fundamental failure.

2. The true nature of the campaign your Ministry funded

Your own released documents (the Final Results Report and related emails) show the grant paid for:

A billboard campaign “drawing attention to the International Court of Justice findings” (widely understood as referring to genocide allegations against Israel).

The website stopthesilence.nz dedicated to raising awareness of the “humanitarian crisis” in Gaza.
A 40-day “Stop the Silence” email campaign.

Social media and content explicitly designed to shift public opinion and challenge “indifference”.

The campaign name itself — “4 for 40 Stop the Silence” — and its goal of ending “government’s complicit silence” are textbook political advocacy. Calling this “community engagement… to support respectful dialogue, including engagement with Muslim, Jewish and other communities” is not credible.

3. Fast-track approval and advisor assistance

The application was received on 27 November 2023 and approved on 1 December 2023 — just four days later — with a Community Funding Advisor actively assisting the applicant. This was fast-tracked outside normal processes. The Ministry has now confirmed this, while simultaneously admitting it kept no records of assessing the political nature of the activities.

This sequence is extremely concerning.

4. Other issues

The Final Results Report was initially withheld at the applicant’s request while they provided clarifications on budget variances (including billboards that were not in the original application and prayer space claims that were later walked back). This further suggests the initial approval and due diligence were inadequate.

I require a corrected and complete response within 10 working days that:

1. Provides any and all records (or confirms none exist) relating to the assessment of advocacy/political content for this grant.
2. Explains how the Ministry satisfied itself that this expenditure complied with the Fund’s prohibition on political objectives.
3. Addresses the specific contradictions outlined above.

I will be referring this entire matter — including your 4 May response — to the Office of the Ombudsman, relevant Members of Parliament, and media outlets. I will also consider whether this case warrants further investigation by the Auditor-General into the administration of the Ethnic Communities Development Fund.

The public is entitled to know how $30,000 of taxpayer money was spent on what was clearly a political advocacy campaign, and why the Ministry appears to have no proper records of checking whether that was allowed.

I look forward to your prompt and substantive reply.

Ngā mihi,
Miguel Angel