23 July 2026
Ref: OIA-2025/26-0855
Andrew Arkins
[FYI request #34903 email]
Tēnā koe Andrew
Official Information Act follow-up request: PMC UAP national security coordination,
NSIP status, and PURSUE response
Thank you for your second Official Information Act 1982 (the Act) follow-up request on the
above-named topic, which was received by the Department of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet (DPMC) on 25 June 2026. You requested:
“Thank you for your clarification of 25 June 2026. It has surfaced a defect in the search
that I must ask DPMC to remedy before I decide whether to seek the Ombudsman's
review.
Your response states that DPMC's searches covered the period from 12 March 2024 to
5 June 2026. My request concerns the Five Eyes Inaugural UAP Caucus Working Group
held at the Pentagon on 24 May 2023, and the records connected to it. The search period
you describe begins more than nine months after that event. A search that starts in March
2024 cannot, by its own scope, capture records created around a meeting held in May
2023. That includes invitations, briefings, the New Zealand contribution or update, and
any reporting or correspondence from that period.
The basis you give for the start date does not cure the defect, and the request you rely
on makes the problem worse. You point to the earlier request OIA-2023/24-0650,
received on 12 March 2024, as having covered the prior period. That request was a
broad topic request covering UAP matters from 2010 onward. It did not reference the 24
May 2023 caucus, and it did not use the specific terms I have provided, including Five
Eyes UAP Caucus, FVEY UAP, AARO, and PURSUE. It was refused under section
18(e), on the basis that the information does not exist or cannot be found. We now know,
from United States records and from the New Zealand Defence Force's written
confirmation, that the caucus occurred and that a New Zealand representative attended.
A prior nul result on the same subject, produced by a less specific search, cannot
demonstrate that the present search was adequate. It tends to show the opposite, that
the relevant records have been missed more than once. The reasonable period for this
request is the period in which the relevant records would exist, which plainly includes
May 2023.
I therefore ask DPMC to conduct a fresh search covering, at a minimum, 1 January 2023
to the present, using the search terms and variants set out in my correspondence of 16
June 2026, and by reference to the date 24 May 2023, across email, document-
management systems, ministerial briefings, meeting records, calendar entries, internal
messaging, and intelligence assessment holdings.
I also ask DPMC to confirm whether the National Assessments Bureau conducted an
actual search of its holdings for that period, as distinct from confirming that it was not
presently aware of relevant information. Awareness in 2026 is not a search of 2023
records.
5163623
Executive Wing, Parliament Buildings, Wellington, New Zealand 6011
64 4 817 9698 www.dpmc.govt.nz
This bears directly on DPMC's conclusion under section 18(g) that it had no grounds to
believe the information is held by, or more closely connected with the functions of,
another agency. In its response OIA-2024-5215, the New Zealand Defence Force
confirmed in writing that a New Zealand representative attended the 24 May 2023
briefing on New Zealand's behalf, and that NZDF holds briefing information from the
meeting, which it withheld under sections 6(a) and 6(b)(i). That is direct, documented
confirmation that a named New Zealand agency holds relevant information. It was known
to me, and raised in my correspondence, before DPMC finalised its conclusion. DPMC's
position that it has no grounds to believe the information is held elsewhere cannot be
reconciled with that confirmation, and it is a reason DPMC should have considered
transfer under section 14 to NZDF.
If DPMC declines to search the correct period, or again locates nothing after doing so, I
wil seek the Ombudsman's review under section 28(3), and this exchange wil form part
of that complaint.”
We have interpreted your request as seeking information about our responses to your previous
requests concerning the Five Eyes (FVEY) Inaugural UAP Caucus Working Group meeting of
24 May 2023. DPMC’s response to your earlier request, OIA-2025/26-0798, was informed by
subject matter expertise and knowledge of information holdings. In your follow-up request,
OIA-2025/26-0826, you identified keywords you wanted included in the scope of your request.
Keyword term search results
DPMC’s National Security and Resilience Group, including the National Assessments Bureau
(NAB), has undertaken keyword searches for the terms you specified in OIA-2025/26-0826 for
the period 1 January 2023 to 25 June 2026. These searches covered relevant information
management systems where emails and documents are stored. No information was identified
that related to the 24 May 2023 meeting, UAP as a national security priority, or the other
matters raised in your requests.
As an example of the types of information returned by searches, the terms “UAP”, “UFO”,
“unidentified anomalous phenomena”, “unidentified aerial phenomena”, “Five Eyes UAP
Caucus”, “FVEY UAP”, and “anomalous observations” returned some documents relating to
previous OIA requests we have responded on these topics. A smaller number of results related
to DPMC's Strengthening Resilience to Disinformation work programme, which was delivered
by the National Security Group between 2022 and 2024 and is publicly documented on the
DPMC website. None of these results included information about the 24 May 2023 meeting or
UAP as a national security priority and are therefore not considered to be in scope of your
request.
Please note that some of DPMC’s information management systems do not support case-
sensitive searching. This means that an unqualified search for the string “PURSUE” would
return every occurrence of the ordinary English verb “pursue” across DPMC's holdings. Given
the frequency of that verb, such a search would return a very large volume of unrelated results
and would not be a reliable or proportionate way to identify information relevant to your request.
Searches for the full phrase “Presidential Unsealing and Reporting System for UAP
Encounters” – for which "PURSUE" is the reported acronym – returned no relevant results.
For similar reasons of proportionality and accuracy, we searched for the full phrase “Al -domain
Anomaly Resolution Office” rather than the acronym "AARO" alone. Searching the acronym
alone would have returned unrelated results, including personal names (for example, "Aaron")
and other uses of the same characters in unrelated contexts. The full-phrase search returned
no relevant results. We note that case-sensitive searches of NAB's holdings for the exact
5163623
2
strings “PURSUE” and “AARO” were also undertaken. These searches likewise returned no
results relevant to your request.
Parts of your request to be refused under section 18(f)
The terms “space-domain awareness” and “air-domain awareness” are established terms in
defence, aviation, maritime and space policy, and appear regularly in information held by
DPMC — including by NAB — in contexts that are unrelated to your request. Searches for
these two phrases returned results numbering in the thousands. Assessing each of these
results for relevance would require substantial collation and manual review, and, having first
considered the alternatives available under sections 18(a) and 18(b) of the Act (including
whether the request could be narrowed, extended, or charged for), I am not satisfied that any
of those steps would enable the request to be answered in respect of these two terms.
DPMC does not hold the content of individuals’ calendar entries or internal messaging in a
central repository and does not have a tool that enables a centralised keyword search across
these. To search those sources, DPMC would need to identify current and former staff who
may hold relevant information, ask each person to manual y search any relevant device or
application, extract any potentially in-scope material, and then collate and assess that material.
DPMC has considered whether extending the timeframe would enable this part of the request
to be granted. Given the breadth of the sources identified and the manual work required, DPMC
does not consider that an extension would enable this information to be made available without
substantial collation or research.
These parts of your request are therefore refused under section 18(f) of the Act, as the
information requested cannot be made available without substantial collation or research.
Information to be refused under section 18(e)
On the basis of the searches described above, DPMC has made reasonable efforts to locate
information held by DPMC, including NAB, relating to the 24 May 2023 meeting or UAP as a
national security priority. No relevant information has been located. To the extent your request
seeks information relating to these matters, your request is refused under section 18(e) of the
Act, as the information requested does not exist or, despite reasonable efforts to locate it,
cannot be found.
Transfer to NZDF
We have also considered your comments about transfer to the New Zealand Defence Force
(NZDF). Your present request is directed to information held by DPMC and to the searches
undertaken by DPMC, including NAB. We also understand you have made a separate request
directly to NZDF for information relating to the 24 May 2023 meeting, and that NZDF has
responded. As such, DPMC does not consider that transfer of your present request to NZDF
is required.
You have the right to seek an investigation and review of this response by the Ombudsman
under section 28(3) of the Act.
5163623
3
This response wil be published on the DPMC website during our regular publication cycle.
Typically, information is released monthly, or as otherwise determined. Your personal
information, including your name and contact details, wil be removed before publication.
Nāku noa, nā
Julian Grey
Acting Deputy Chief Executive
National Security and Resilience Group
5163623
4
