Deny, Denounce,Delay - How Coalition Ministers Are Getting Around The Official Information Act.

The Sunday Long Read 7/9/ 2025

It’s thanks to the support of my paid subscribers that I am able to do the kind of investigate work you see here. I publish something every day but only release an article into the public domain when it reaches over 75 or sometimes 100 “likes” from them.

If you are one of my free subscribers who cares about what is happening to our country, then below is a sample of my fourth estate journalism you are currently missing. Please consider upgrading to a paid subscription to support my work and join the informed chat group of our online community intelligent New Zealanders who want to leave a legacy, not a liability, for those who come after us.

How The Government Is Denying You The RightTo Know.

As a member of the fourth estate it’s my job to call the powerful to account, because transparency is one of cornerstones to our democracy.

The vehicle for asking what are sometimes uncomfortable questions of those who govern us, is the Official Information Act ( 1982), however the current Coalition of right- wing parties seems to be doing all it can to avoid the release of information, by delaying the provision of it, offering some but not all of ir, or even pretending the information doesn’t exist.

So today I thought I would take you through some recent examples of how four government ministers have treated not only my OIA’s but those of others such as RNZ , who in theory have much more clout and deeper pockets than I do when it comes to demanding answers from these politicians.

Let’s start with Health Minister Simeon Brown.

Browned Off.

A recent investigation by the Ombudsman found Simeon Brown’s Health Ministry (Te Whatu Ora) had “unreasonably” delayed and obstructed the release of data about hospital shifts being staffed below recommended safety levels.. While Te Whatu Ora has since apologized for its behaviour, I can tell you from responses I have received to OIAs as recently as yesterday, that nothing has changed.

They are still employing evasive tactics that must either derive from Brown himself – if so they are devious, or if not, then he has lost control over his Ministry and should be fired for incompetence.

Which is it?

Take what his Ministry did to the Nurses Organisation.

Te Whatu Ora refusd to release the data it held over safe staffing levels which would have proved what the striking nurses were claiming – namely that hospitals are understaffed and nurses are overworked.

While he was quick to denounce the Nurses strike action, he was slow to admit they were right about staffing levels and patient safety.

Now that the Ombudsman has forced the release of The Care Capacity Demand Management Data, it shows that from January to November 2024 day shifts across all wards were understaffed 51% of the time and all evening shifts were understaffed 35% of the time.

So given that Te Whatu Ora has had to apologise for "unreasonably" delaying and obstructing the release of official information you might think Minister Brown’s office would have mended its ways.

Not a bit of it.

Take my own experience.

On the 9^th of June this year I asked Health Minister Brown three OIA questions. Two about women’s health care and one about prescription medicines.

On the 30^th of June I received a letter which said his office were transferring the two women’s health questions to Associate Minister Casey Costello who is responsible for women’s health.

That never happened.

My questions were

1. Why are routine dating scans no longer funded for pregnant women? Please supply copies of all the empirical and literature evidence, or any other advice supplied to you by email or any other form, by any person, organisaltion or any other entity, that you considered in making the decision nogt to fund dating scans.

2. Why are post-natal 6- week check- ups for women with their GP not available in New Zealand as they are in other countries similar to our own with publicly funded healh care such as the UK, Australia and Canada?

Please supply the empirical and medical literature evidence or any other advice supplied to you in email or any other form by any person, organisaltion, or any other entity, that you considered in making the decision not to fund post-natal check ups.

3. I note the Government has recently announced a new initiative in the Budget to extend the maximum prescription length from 3 months to 12 months.

Please supply copies of any and all research done by any of your ministry officials, plus the written form of any assessment by any person , such as email or memo, that you considered as you assessed the benefits and dangers of this new policy

On the 15^th of July I received a reply on Question 3 from Minister Brown

Section 18(d) of the Act applies to the information in scope of your request, in that the material will soon be proactively released on the Ministry of Health's website:

www.health.govt.nz/information-releases. This information is itemised below.

This is ridiculous I thought. They have identified the documents to answer my query, why don’t they release them to me immediately?

And what does releasing then “soon” mean?

So on August 8^th I wrote again to Minister Brown asking that very question stating:

“Under the Official Information Act 1982 I request the immediate release to me of the documents you listed in your July 15th 2025 letter within 20 working days or give a precise date for the release of all these documents on the Ministry Website.”

Yesterday I received the reply that “soon” meant the end of September.

If that indeed happens it will be 3 months since I asked my questions.

A Casey In Point

And what had happened to the two questions on women’s health that Associate Minister Casey Costello was supposed to have answered within 20 working days ? As I had heard nothing from her I followed up with her office.

It turns out those two questions were not in fact transferred from Simeon Brown’s office to Costello’s, and if I had not chased them up I would not have received the reply I eventually did on the 27^th of August, Fifty- seven days after I had asked:

"1. Why are routine dating scans no longer funded for pregnant women? Please supply copies of all the empirical and literature evidence, or any other advice supplied to you by email or any other form, by any person, organisation or any other entity, that you considered in making the decision not to fund dating scans.

2. Why are post-natal 6- week check-ups for women with their GP not available in New Zealand as they are in other countries similar to our own with publicly funded health care such as the UK, Australia and Canada?

Please supply the empirical and medical literature evidence or any other advice supplied to you in email or any other form by any person, organisation, or any other entity, that you considered in making the decision not to fund post-natal check-ups"

Costello’s answers were..

1. Primary maternity ultrasounds scans are funded under the Primary Maternity Services Notice 2021. No recent changes have been made to the funding available for these scans.

2. Funding covers 'clinically indicated' maternity ultrasound scans. Dating scans are not considered clinically necessary and are therefore not eligible for public funding. my ephasis) The list of clinically indicated ultrasound scans can be found here: Clinically Indicated Maternity Ultrasounds. ( NB The link didn’t work when I tried it).

3. National clinical guidance on maternity ultrasound scanning can be found in the New Zealand Obstetric Ultrasound Guidelines on Health New Zealand (Te Whatu Ora's) Health

These guidelines were developed by the Maternity Ultrasound Advisory Group and use the literature listed on pages 113-116. The guidelines provide recommendations to ensure that diagnostic ultrasound usage in New Zealand is clinically appropriate and of high quality.

To my second question her reply was:

“The Primary Maternity Services Notice 2021 (the Notice) sets out the service specifications and payment rules for remuneration of practitioners with an authorisation to claim for the provision of community-based primary maternity services. You can find the 2021 Notice on the Ministry of Health's I Manato Hauora website here: Primary Maternity Services Notice 2021.

In accordance with the Notice, a general practitioner (GP) with a Diploma in Obstetrics, a Diploma in Obstetrics and Medical Gynaecology (or equivalent, as determined by the New Zealand College of General Practitioners) can be a registered Lead Maternity Carer (LMC) for women and claim for the provision of post-natal care including the 6-week check.

Clause DA53 (1 )(b) of the Notice requires the LMC (regardless of whether they are a Midwife or a GP) to undertake the same examination of women and babies prior to discharge at 4 to 6 weeks following birth.

Additionally, clause DA 10 of the Notice outlines the responsibility of LMC to refer women and their baby to primary health services before the end of the 4th week following birth.

So, if you are pregnant, or just had a baby -check out the above with your GP , Gynaecologist or Maternity Carer and get the scans you may be entitled to.

If you find Costello’s response a bit confusing here is a link that might be a bit more useful

https://www.tewhatuora.govt.nz/for-health-professionals/health-workforce-development/maternity/new-zealand-obstetric-ultrasound-guidelines-online/first-trimester/first-trimester-ultrasound

The Ministry Of See No Evil

Like many of you I am deeply concerned about the genocide happening in Gaza and I believe we shouldn’t be supporting the current Israeli government in any way. It is my view that one line of pressure we could exert as a country is to boycott the purchase of Israeli products and not invest in Israeli companies.

So on the 9^th of August this year I sent an OIA to Finance Minister Nicola Willis asking the following questions.

Question 1:

a. Is it correct that The New Zealand Superannuation Fund holds almost $6 million in Israeli Sovereign bonds?

b. Under Section 64 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001, I note you, as Finance Minister, have the power to issue a non-binding ministerial direction to the fund's guardians directing them to consider divesting from Israeli sovereign bonds to avoid "prejudice to New Zealand's reputation as a responsible member of the world community".

Question 2:

Have you had any discussions with The Guardians of the NZ Superannuation Fund with regard to the ethics of investing in Israeli sovereign bonds?

Question 3:

If so, what was the view you expressed to them and what was their response? Please give dates and supply any supporting documents. including emails and memos in support of your reply.

I received her reply on the 2^nd of September – so, within the 20 working days which was good.

Her answers however, were worthy of Pontius Pilot .

What the Guardians of the Superannuation Fund did, she argued, was no business of hers.

She replied she had had no discussions with the Guardians of the Superannuation Fund over investing in Israeli companies and bonds because they are an independent body . (Even though under Section 64 states she could express her view to them if she wished.)

She then added that whilst she understood my concerns

“I remain satisfied that the Guardians continue to manage and administer the Fund in a manner consistent with its mandate under section 58 of its governing legislation, which includes (among other things) "avoiding prejudice to New Zealand's reputation as a responsible member of the world community" through application of their Sustainable Investment Framework and investment policies.

Furthermore, the 2024 Statutory Review of the Guardians undertaken by Willis Towers Watson confirmed that the Fund is operating at global best practice in its activities - a state it has maintained for the past five years.

I note that I specifically included in the terms of reference for this review "Ethical/Sustainable Investment Framework: to evaluate the framework in relation to "avoiding prejudice to New Zealand's reputation as a responsible member of the world community", as well as in the context of international best practice standards .

Really? Was there no moral issue here?

When I then looked up who owns Willis Towers Watson I learned they are a British /American firm owned by : The Vanguard Group Inc, BlackRock Inc, Massachusetts Service Company , State Street Global Advisors, Inc , First Eagle Investment Management , LLC , Harris Associates L.P., Artisan Partners Limited Partnership,T. Rowe Price Group Inc, Geode Capital Management LLC and FMR LLC…to name a few.

Given that it’s likely that some of Willis Towers Watson’s own shareholders will have investments in Israeli companies and bonds, are they really the best choice of organisation to supply our government the independent moral view with regard to investing in Israeli entities upon which Minister Willis says she relies?

My answer is no.

How about you?

The Peters Principle - Delay,delay,delay.

While I’m on the Gaza Issue - I wrotte to Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters and asked the following OIA questions on the 9^th of August

Question 1:

Have you ,as Minister of Foreign Affairs specifically stated anywhere that genocide is happening in Gaza?

If so, please provide the statement or document within which that specific assertion is contained. If not please explain why you have not produced such a genocide statement?

Question 2:

Why has the New Zealand government not supported the South Africa vs Israel case to the International Court under Article 63 of the statute, or filed its own allegation of Genocide under the Convention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide with the International Criminal Court of Justice? Please provide any, and all documents, emails or memos that demonstrate the New Zealand government has carefully considered the two options stated in the sentence above.

Question 3:

Why did the New Zealand Government support the Ukraine vs Russia allegation of Genocide under the Convention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide with the International Criminal Court of Justice, on the 28th of July 2022 Under Article 63 in reference to Ukraine vs Russia (The Document Number is 182-20220729-PRE-01-00-EN ) but has not supported the South Africa vs Israel allegation?

Please provide copies of any consultation documents of any sort including emails and memos you have relied upon to reach your decision, to date, to not lodge a supportive allegation for South Africa vs Israel or formulate one on behalf of the New Zealand Government.

Question 4:

What goods and services has the New Zealand government purchased from Israeli companies or organsiations since November 2023? Please supply a list giving the nature and value of each purchase or procurement.

Question 5:

The Russian Sanction Act was passed in 2022. Do you plan to table a Sanctions Israel Act? If not, why not?

On September 5^th I received the following reply from his office.

It reads:

“This letter is to advise that we will need to extend the time limit for responding to you by 20 working days, to 3 October 2025. This is because:

1. The consultations necessary to make a decision on your request are such that a proper response cannot reasonably be made within the original time frame (section 15A(1)(b) of the OIA refers); and

2. Responding to your request necessitates review of a large quantity of information, and meeting the original time limit would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the Ministry (section 15A(1)(a) of the OIA refers) “

In short, Peters took the full 20 working days to write to me that he wanted an extension.

I’m not happy with that decision. His office has said I might expect the minister’s decision by Oct 3. Perhaps by then he will have stopped dragging his feet and have,at the very least, recognised Palestinian Statehood .

Stay tuned!

Please share and restack posts you find useful as it all helps to build readership.