Correspondence re: Application for Knighthood for ex PM John Phillip Key
Suzanne Newton made this Official Information request to Prime Minister
The request was refused by Prime Minister.
From: Suzanne Newton
Dear Prime Minister,
Please supply as soon as possible, copies of all correspondence, including notes, phone call logs, emails, letters and other such methods of correspondence from any source both to and from your office regarding the application for and acceptance of application for a Knighthood for John Phillip Key. Dated between 1 December 2016 and 5 June 2017.
This should include any correspondence with John Phillip Key, the office of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II or herself, or any of her representatives, and any other party, including yourself, other members of Parliament that has corresponded by any means with you, your office regarding this matter. Included in this correspondence should be the original application/s giving reasons etc.
Yours faithfully,
Suzanne Newton
From: B English (MIN)
Prime Minister
Thank you for your email to the Prime Minister.
This is an automated response.
Please be assured that any matters you raise in your email will be noted;
however, not all messages will receive an individual response.
Yours sincerely
The Office of the Prime Minister
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sarah Boyle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Information [DPMC]
[UNCLASSIFIED]
Dear Suzanne Newton
This email is to confirm that the Department of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet (DPMC) has received your Official Information Act (OIA) request
from the office of the Prime Minister. This request was received 13 June
2017.
We are treating your request as a request for information under the
Official Information Act 1982.
The request is for:
"copies of all correspondence, including notes, phone call logs, emails,
letters and other such methods of correspondence from any source both to
and from your office regarding the application for and acceptance of
application for a Knighthood for John Phillip Key. Dated between 1
December 2016 and 5 June 2017.
This should include any correspondence with John Phillip Key, the office
of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II or herself, or any of her
representatives, and any other party, including yourself, other members of
Parliament that has corresponded by any means with you, your office
regarding this matter. Included in this correspondence should be the
original application/s giving reasons etc.."
Kind regards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ministerial Coordinator
Office of the Chief Executive
[1]cid:image001.gif@01CE893F.79F24AB0
show quoted sections
From: Louise Beard [DPMC]
[UNCLASSIFIED]
Dear Suzanne
In response to your request for information, I attach a letter from
Michael Webster, Clerk of the Executive Council.
Kind regards
[1]cid:image001.png@01CED718.F89D2C00 Louise Beard
Executive Assistant to the Secretary
of the Cabinet and Clerk of the
Executive Council
Cabinet Office
Department of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet
[2][email address]
DDI: (04) 817 9749
show quoted sections
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid requests for Official Information (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this requestAct on what you've learnt
Similar requests
London Bridge is down. The Queen is dead
To Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet by Requestor
James Wallace: Prime Minister’s Office releases documents which led to stripping of disgraced arts patron’s knighthood
To Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet by john luke
Luke C left an annotation ()
This is the typical response one can expect from the Cabinet Office. They often use multiple withholding reasons to bolster their argument to withhold the information.
The tone they set is one where they consider the OIA should not be able to penetrate into the finner constitutional workings of government and believe if it did so, it would undermine the integrity of those workings. It is over exaggerated.
They don't *think* there are any public interest considerations. They didn't want to entertain any possible considerations, because it would weaken their argument.
Link to this