Dear Ministry of Defence Information Request team,

I write under the Official Information Act 1982 to request information held by the Ministry of Defence relating to its oversight of New Zealand Defence Force training scenarios, with specific reference to the "Visayan People's Front" (VPF) scenario drawn from the Decisive Action Training Environment (DATE).

For background: NZDF has confirmed (OIA-2025-5622, response of 5 February 2026) that the VPF scenario — in which a predominantly Christian armed insurgent group operates in opposition to a Muslim immigrant community within a fictional country geographically resembling New Zealand's South Island — was used four times in 2025 NZDF training, that the underlying scenario was developed by 2/1 RNZIR in August 2023, and that, following an internal Army review, the Army has directed the removal from training scenarios of actors not contained within the DATE-world.

This request seeks information held by the Ministry of Defence, not the operational training documents themselves (which are held by NZDF).

On Ministerial briefings and awareness

1. Has the Minister of Defence (currently Hon Chris Penk, and previously Hon Judith Collins) been briefed at any point — written or oral — about the VPF scenario, the SASO scenario developed by 2/1 RNZIR in August 2023, or the broader matter of religious or political identification of opposing forces in NZDF training scenarios? Please provide: a. Copies of any written briefings; b. The dates of any oral briefings; c. The titles and authors of those briefings.
2. Has the Minister of Defence issued any Ministerial direction, statement of expectation, or letter of expectation to NZDF or the Ministry on the matter of cultural, religious, or political appropriateness in training scenarios? If so, please provide copies.

On Ministry of Defence advice and oversight

1. Has the Ministry of Defence provided advice to the Minister of Defence, or to NZDF, on: a. The adoption of the DATE training environment by NZ Army in 2021; b. The use of religious, ethnic, or politically-identified opposing-force scenarios in training; c. The VPF scenario specifically, at any point since August 2023?

If so, please provide copies of that advice.

1. Does the Ministry of Defence hold any policy, framework, or guideline governing the cultural, religious, or political appropriateness of training scenarios used by NZDF? If so, please provide a copy.
2. If no such policy is held by the Ministry, please confirm that fact, and indicate whether the Ministry considers oversight of this matter to be its responsibility, NZDF's, or shared.

On the internal review referred to by NZDF

1. NZDF's response of 5 February 2026 refers to an Army review that has directed the removal of non-DATE actors from training scenarios. Has the Ministry of Defence: a. Been briefed on the existence, scope, or findings of that review? b. Received a copy of the review's report or directed outcome? c. Provided any input to the review?

If yes to any of these, please provide the relevant documents.

On correspondence

1. Please provide any correspondence, including emails, between the Ministry of Defence and NZDF between 1 December 2025 and the date of this request that refers to the VPF scenario, to "Christian extremist" training scenarios more generally, or to the OIA response of 5 February 2026 (OIA-2025-5622).
2. Please provide any correspondence between the Ministry of Defence and any other government agency (including but not limited to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, or the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security) on the same subject matter and over the same period.

On the Christchurch context

1. The royal commission of inquiry into the 15 March 2019 terrorist attack on the Christchurch mosques made findings about the framing of threat in New Zealand's national security architecture. Does the Ministry of Defence hold any record of considering the implications of that report for NZDF training scenario design, in particular for scenarios involving religious, ethnic, or political opposing forces? If so, please provide.

Procedural matters

I request that information be provided in electronic form. Where information is to be withheld, please cite the specific section of the OIA relied upon. Where information is withheld in part, please indicate clearly what has been withheld and why.

If any part of this request is more appropriately directed to NZDF rather than the Ministry, please transfer that part under section 14 of the Act and notify me of the transfer.

I am happy to discuss narrowing or clarifying any question that would assist a timely response within the 20-working-day statutory period.

I confirm that this request and any response will be publicly available via FYI.org.nz. I confirm I am a New Zealand citizen ordinarily resident in New Zealand.

Thank you for your response of 19 May 2026 to my Official Information Act request regarding Ministry of Defence oversight of NZDF training scenarios.

I note the Ministry's position that it is not responsible for oversight of NZDF training scenarios and holds no information within scope. Before deciding whether to seek a review by the Ombudsman, I would appreciate clarification on several points.

Ministerial briefings
The Ministry states it was not involved in this particular activity. However, my question was not whether the Ministry was involved in training scenario design, but whether the Minister of Defence was briefed on the matter at any point — including after it became a subject of public interest following the NZDF OIA response of 5 February 2026 and subsequent media coverage. The Ministry is the primary channel for providing advice and briefings to the Minister of Defence. Can the Ministry confirm that no briefing, media response pack, talking points, or "for your awareness" note was prepared for the Minister on this topic at any point?

Policy framework
I asked whether the Ministry holds any policy or guideline governing the cultural, religious, or political appropriateness of NZDF training scenarios, and if not, whether the Ministry considers that oversight to be its responsibility, NZDF's, or shared. The response states the Ministry is not responsible for oversight of training scenarios, but does not directly answer the question about where the Ministry considers this responsibility to sit. Could the Ministry please confirm explicitly: does the Ministry consider that no civilian oversight of the cultural and political content of NZDF training scenarios is required, or does it consider this to be a matter for NZDF's own internal governance?

Christchurch Royal Commission
The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the 15 March 2019 terrorist attack made findings relevant to the framing of threat across New Zealand's national security architecture, of which the Ministry of Defence is a part. My question was whether the Ministry holds any record of considering those findings in relation to training scenario design. This is a policy question directed at the Ministry's own advisory function, not a question about NZDF's operational training. Can the Ministry confirm that it has never considered the Royal Commission's findings in this context?

Correspondence
Can the Ministry confirm that a search of its email systems returned no correspondence between Ministry staff and NZDF staff, or between Ministry staff and any other government agency, mentioning the VPF scenario, "Christian extremist" training scenarios, or OIA-2025-5622 at any point between 1 December 2025 and 6 May 2026? Given that the NZDF OIA response received media attention, I would find it surprising if no correspondence at all passed between the Ministry and NZDF on this topic, even informally.