Search Methodology and Record Identification (OIA-2026-5686)
SPENCER JONES made this Official Information request to New Zealand Defence Force
Response to this request is delayed. By law, New Zealand Defence Force should normally have responded promptly and by (details and exceptions)
From: SPENCER JONES
Dear New Zealand Defence Force, Veterans Affairs.
Kia ora,
I refer to your response to my request (OIA-2026-5686), in which parts of the request were refused under section 18(e) on the basis that no relevant information “has been identified”.
To understand how this conclusion was reached, I request the following information relating to the search and decision-making process undertaken.
1. Systems and Repositories Searched
Please identify all systems, repositories, and locations that were searched for information within scope of my request, including (but not limited to):
• email systems (e.g. Outlook or equivalent)
• document and records management systems
• ministerial servicing or briefing systems
• shared drives or team collaboration platforms
• archived or legacy systems
2. Search Methodology
Please provide details of how searches were conducted, including:
• keywords or search terms used
• whether Boolean or advanced search techniques were applied
• any filters used (e.g. date ranges, custodians, business units)
• whether searches were targeted or system-wide
3. Staff and Business Units Consulted
Please specify:
• which business units were consulted
• the roles or positions of staff involved in identifying or confirming whether information was held
4. Scope of Document Types Considered
Please confirm whether the following document types were specifically searched or considered:
• ministerial briefings and aide memoires
• internal reports or draft advice
• email correspondence
• meeting notes or minutes
• Cabinet or inter-agency material
If any of these categories were not searched, please explain why.
5. Basis for Section 18(e) Decision
Please explain:
• the steps taken to satisfy yourselves that the requested information does not exist
• whether any potential sources of information were excluded from the search
• how completeness of the search was assessed
6. Recordkeeping and Classification Context
Please provide:
• any policies, guidance, or practices relevant to how material of this nature (e.g. ministerial advice, cross-agency coordination, or service gap analysis) is recorded, stored, or classified
7. Limitations
Please identify any limitations in the search process, including whether:
• relevant information may exist but was not captured due to
– inconsistent terminology
– classification practices
– storage in unstructured systems
For clarity, this request does not seek the substantive documents previously requested, but rather information about how the decision under section 18(e) was reached.
If any part of this request can be answered more efficiently through discussion or refinement, I am happy to assist under section 13 of the Act.
Kind regards,
Spencer Jones
Yours faithfully,
SPENCER JONES
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence (note: this contains the same information already available above).

SPENCER JONES left an annotation ()
OIA Update – Follow-up Request to NZDF (Search Methodology and Record Identification)
Original request:
https://fyi.org.nz/request/33888
Context
The New Zealand Defence Force previously refused key parts of this request under section 18(e) of the Official Information Act, stating that:
> no relevant advice or information had been identified
This included material relating to:
• veteran navigation and support outside statutory entitlements
• service gaps and unmet need
• coordination with community and government providers
Follow-up Action
A follow-up request has now been submitted seeking information about how NZDF reached that conclusion.
This includes requests for:
• systems and repositories searched (e.g. email, document systems, ministerial records)
• search methodology (keywords, filters, approach)
• business units and roles involved
• document types considered (briefings, correspondence, reports)
• the basis for concluding that no information exists
Purpose of Follow-up
This request does not seek the original documents again.
Instead, it seeks to understand:
> whether reasonable steps were taken to identify information before concluding that it does not exist
Legal Context
Under the Official Information Act:
• section 18(e) allows refusal where information does not exist
• however, agencies are expected to take reasonable steps to confirm this
Understanding the search process helps clarify:
• whether all relevant systems were examined
• whether appropriate search methods were used
• whether any limitations affected the outcome
Why This Matters
The original request relates to whether:
• issues affecting veterans outside statutory entitlements
• and potential service gaps
have been formally captured in advice to decision-makers.
The follow-up therefore focuses on:
> the robustness of the process used to determine that no such records exist
Current Status
• Original request: refused under section 18(e)
• Follow-up request: submitted (search methodology and process)
• Awaiting response
Broader Context
This request forms part of a wider set of OIAs examining:
• how information is recorded and classified across agencies
• how search processes are conducted
• how “information not held” decisions are reached
Next Steps
Once a response is received, it will be possible to assess:
• whether the search process was comprehensive
• whether any gaps or limitations are identified
• whether further clarification or review is required
Link to this