Official Information Act requests – acknowledgement and clarification

Subject: Refinement under s 13 Official Information Act 1982

On Feb 5, 2026 at 2:09 PM, <Ministerial Services Inbox [TSY]> wrote:

Dear Tracy

 

Thank you for your requests under the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA). The Treasury received a total of 11 requests from you on 3 February and 4 February 2026. Where the requests were made in close proximity and relate to similar topics we have classed them as one request for reasons of administrative efficiency. However, where the topic is clearly distinct from the others, we have classed them as individual requests. A response to the requests will be provided in accordance with the OIA.

 

The request for information (provided below) is very broad in scope and likely to be refused under section 18(f) of the OIA, as substantial manual collation would be required to provide the information requested.

 

As such, I would like to suggest refining your request, so we are able to make the proper considerations on the information you are seeking. I have quoted your requests below, for you to consider as part of your refinement, should you choose to do so. The Treasury suggests that you choose a specific topic and request existing materials that may relate to this topic. Currently, the request is wide ranging and relates to a great deal of subjects. We are happy to work with you on rescoping your request.

 

Please note that once you have amended or clarified your request, under section 15(1AA) of the OIA, the Treasury may treat your amended or clarified request as a new request that replaces the original request. This may lead to a new start of the statutory response period.

I look forward to hearing from you regarding the refinement of your request.

 

If you would like to make a new request and include more specificity on the kind of information being requested, then Treasury will consider that request and provide a response accordingly.

 

The Treasury may publish the response to your OIA request. When you are provided with a response to this request, you will be informed about whether the response to your OIA request will be published. If the Treasury does publish the response to your OIA request, personal information, including your name and contact details, will be removed. This publication process does not apply to extension letters or transfers.

 

Kind regards,

 

Bradley Martin | Te Tai Ōhanga The Treasury 

Ministerial Advisory Service 

treasury.govt.nz | LinkedIn | Youtube 

 

 

[IN-CONFIDENCE]

                                                       

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

The information in this email is confidential to the Treasury, intended only for the addressee(s), and may also be legally privileged. If you are not an intended addressee:

a. please immediately delete this email and notify the Treasury by return email or telephone (64 4 472 2733);

b. any use, dissemination or copying of this email is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

 

 

 

 

 

Request 1 (3 February):

 

PART B — OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUEST

 

This request is made pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982.

 

5. Information Sought

 

For the period [insert relevant years], please provide:

       1.           Any funding, appropriation, Vote allocation, service agreement, contract, or memorandum involving:

           •            Debt Management Central (DMC);

           •            Manawatu-Whanganui LASS Limited (MWLASS);

           •            substitute service, debt recovery, or enforcement activities linked to housing or land.

       2.           Any clawback, cost-recovery, revenue-sharing, or reimbursement mechanismsassociated with:

           •            debt enforcement;

           •            residential dispossession;

           •            forced sale or recovery actions.

       3.           Any Treasury guidance, advice, assurance, or internal analysis relied upon as to the lawfulness of such arrangements.

       4.           Any communications between Treasury and:

           •            MSD;

           •            local authorities;

           •            justice-sector agencies;

concerning the funding or consequences of debt enforcement activity affecting housing.

       5.           Any assessment, review, or awareness within Treasury of the social or fiscal impacts arising from residential dispossession linked to enforcement actions.

 

6. Duty of Candour

 

This request is framed to enable transparency as to whether public funds are being applied in a manner consistent with lawful authority, proportionality, and proper purpose.

 

PART C — PRESERVATION OF POSITION

 

7. Reservation

 

This Claim and request are issued without prejudice and with full reservation of rights.

 

No inference of lawfulness is accepted from the absence of prior intervention by any agency.

 

 

Request 2 (3 February):

 

Request under the Official Information Act 1982

 

This request is made under the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA). It is made in good faith and seeks information necessary to understand public-sector oversight, enforcement economics, and fiscal exposure relating to financial-market misconduct.

 

Information requested

       1.           Enforcement Economics / Cost–Benefit Analysis

Any analysis, modelling, advice, or briefing held by the Treasury (including draft or internal documents) that considers whether financial institutions may rationally repeat market misconduct where penalties, settlements, or fines are materially lower than the profits generated by that misconduct.

       2.           Clawback, Disgorgement, or Recovery Mechanisms

All documents describing Treasury’s role (if any) in clawback, disgorgement, recovery, or fiscal treatment of penalties, settlements, or fines imposed on financial institutions for market manipulation or related misconduct, including:

           •            whether recovered sums are netted against gains;

           •            whether Treasury assesses deterrence effectiveness;

           •            whether repeat-offence risk is evaluated.

       3.           Inter-agency Oversight and Accountability

Communications, guidance, or memoranda between Treasury and any regulator or enforcement body concerning:

           •            adequacy of penalties as deterrence;

           •            repeat-offender risk;

           •            market integrity and systemic risk implications.

       4.           International Coordination / Awareness

Any briefings or awareness held by Treasury regarding overseas enforcement actions for precious-metals or commodities market manipulation, and whether such actions informed New Zealand policy, risk assessments, or regulatory posture.

       5.           Fiscal Exposure and Public Interest

Any assessment of fiscal, market, or public-interest exposure where enforcement outcomes allow misconduct to remain economically rational for large institutions.

 

Administrative matters

    •            If any part of this request is refused, please specify the precise statutory ground relied upon and provide the public-interest balancing considered.

    •            Where information is withheld, please provide a schedule describing the document and the basis for withholding.

    •            Electronic copies are preferred.

 

To: The Office of the Auditor-General

 

Request under the Official Information Act 1982

 

This request seeks information relating to the Auditor-General’s consideration of deterrence, value-for-money, and effectiveness of enforcement regimes where penalties may be treated as a cost of doing business.

 

Information requested

       1.           Audit or Assurance Work

Any audits, inquiries, assurance reviews, or scoping documents that consider whether penalties and settlements for financial-market misconduct provide effective deterrence or value for money.

       2.           Systemic Risk and Repeat Behaviour

Any analysis or correspondence assessing whether enforcement settings permit repeat misconduct because penalties are materially lower than profits.

       3.           Treasury Interaction

Communications between the Auditor-General and Treasury concerning:

           •            enforcement economics;

           •            deterrence effectiveness;

           •            clawback or recovery of gains;

           •            systemic market integrity risk.

       4.           Standards and Benchmarks

Any standards, benchmarks, or criteria used by the Auditor-General when assessing whether enforcement outcomes protect the public interest and fiscal integrity.

 

Administrative matters

    •            If information is refused, please identify the statutory ground and any public-interest considerations applied.

    •            Please provide documents electronically where possible.

 

Purpose and context

 

The purpose of these requests is to understand whether public institutions have assessed, or are assessing, the risk that enforcement regimes may fail to deter repeated market misconduct because penalties are economically rational to absorb. This is a matter of public confidence, fiscal stewardship, and market integrity.

 

Request 3 (3 February):

 

Request under the Official Information Act 1982

 

This request is made pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA).

 

The purpose of this request is to understand fiscal flows, accountability mechanisms, and funding reconciliation relating to enforcement activity undertaken by Crown agencies, and the subsequent treatment of enforcement-derived revenue within the Crown financial system. This request is made for reasons of transparency, public accountability, and reasonableness.

 

This request does not seek operational decision-making material, personal information, or privileged legal advice.

 

Information Requested

 

A. Enforcement-Derived Revenue

 

Please provide all documents, policies, guidance, accounting instructions, or financial frameworks held by the Treasury that describe how the following monies are treated once received by the Crown:

    •            Fines and infringement fees

    •            Court-ordered costs

    •            Penalties

    •            Enforcement or compliance recoveries

    •            Cost-recovery amounts associated with prosecutions or regulatory enforcement

 

B. Accounts and Funds

 

Please identify:

       1.           The specific accounts, funds, or ledgers into which enforcement-derived monies are paid; and

       2.           Whether such monies are:

           •            Returned to the Consolidated Fund;

           •            Used to offset appropriations;

           •            Treated as Crown revenue; or

           •            Applied to reduce the net operating cost of agencies.

 

C. Budgeting, Forecasting, and Reconciliation

 

Please provide documents showing whether enforcement-derived revenue is:

    •            Forecast or modelled during budget preparation;

    •            Reported as part of agency performance or financial reporting; and/or

    •            Reconciled against appropriations or baseline funding.

 

D. Clawback, Offset, or Cost-Recovery Mechanisms

 

Please provide any documents describing mechanisms by which enforcement-related revenue is:

    •            Clawed back;

    •            Netted off;

    •            Offset against Vote funding; or

    •            Taken into account in future appropriations or baseline adjustments.

 

E. Inter-Agency Treatment

 

Please provide any guidance or correspondence between the Treasury and:

    •            The Ministry of Justice;

    •            Crown Law; or

    •            Enforcement agencies (including Police or regulatory bodies)

 

that describes how enforcement-derived monies are to be treated for fiscal or accountability purposes.

 

Public Interest

 

There is a strong public interest in understanding whether enforcement activity is fiscally neutral, revenue-offsetting, or revenue-generating, and how this interacts with principles of fairness, proportionality, and access to justice.

 

Transparency as to funding flows is essential where enforcement powers affect the rights, property, and livelihoods of members of the public.

 

Format and Timeframe

 

Please provide the requested information:

    •            In electronic form (PDF or DOCX preferred); and

    •            Within the statutory timeframe.

 

If any part of this request is refused, please specify:

    •            The precise statutory ground relied upon; and

    •            Why the public interest does not outweigh the need to withhold.

 

If clarification is required, please contact the requesting party promptly rather than refusing the request.

 

Request 4 (4 February):

 

This request is made under the Official Information Act 1982.

 

I seek information held by the Treasury relating to the funding, appropriation scope, oversight, and any cost-recovery or clawback mechanisms connected with Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) compliance and prosecution activity, particularly where such activity involves disputed regulatory enforcement and Police involvement.

 

Context (for clarity only):  

A current MPI prosecution is actively disputed on evidential, ownership, disclosure, and proportionality grounds. Engagement terms for meetings were formally notified in advance through this office, including a stated fee payable in advance. MPI did not attend the proposed meeting and no payment was made, yet enforcement activity and escalation nevertheless proceeded. Given this sequence, clarification of Treasury’s oversight role is sought.

 

### Information requested

 

Please provide the following:

 

1. Appropriations / Votes

   – The Vote(s) and appropriation categories under which MPI compliance, investigation, and prosecution activity (including NAIT-related enforcement) are funded.

   – Any conditions, limitations, or proportionality requirements attached to those appropriations.

 

2. Cost Recovery / Revenue Retention

   – Whether MPI is authorised to recover costs, retain revenue, or otherwise receive funding linked to enforcement actions, prosecutions, infringement activity, or compliance outcomes.

   – Any clawback, performance-linked, or outcome-based funding mechanisms applicable to MPI enforcement activity.

 

3. Police Involvement

   – Whether Treasury funds, reimburses, or otherwise accounts for Police involvement in MPI regulatory enforcement or prosecutions.

   – Any guidance or oversight Treasury applies where Police resources are used to support regulatory enforcement based on disputed assumptions.

 

4. Oversight and Risk Management

   – Treasury policies, guidance, or internal documents addressing oversight where prosecutions are disputed, stayed, withdrawn, or later found to be procedurally defective.

   – Any monitoring or review mechanisms Treasury applies to ensure public funds are used only for lawful, proportionate enforcement within appropriation scope.

 

5. Inter-agency Assumptions

   – Any Treasury guidance on reliance by one agency on another agency’s factual assumptions (for example, ownership, control, or responsibility) when public funds are applied to enforcement activity.

 

If any part of this request is refused, please specify the statutory ground relied upon and provide any information that can be released in partial or summary form.

 

Request 5 (4 February):

 

 

Information Requested:

1. Any Treasury clawback, recovery, rebate, reimbursement, or incentive mechanisms linked to:

   – Local authority rates enforcement

   – Mortgage enforcement or default actions

   – Forced property sales

   – Bank-led debt recovery actions

2. Any Treasury funding arrangements (Votes, appropriations, performance-linked funding, or reimbursements) that are triggered by or adjusted based on enforcement outcomes.

3. A list of agencies or entities receiving Treasury funds connected to enforcement or debt recovery activity.

4. Any Treasury briefings, Cabinet papers, internal memoranda, or guidance discussing enforcement-related recoveries or incentives.

5. Any assessments or safeguards addressing risks of disproportionate enforcement.

 

 

Request 6 (4 February):

Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982, please provide the following information:

 

1. Cost Treatment

How are enforcement and litigation costs incurred by local authorities or CCOs treated for Crown accounting purposes when such costs are not recovered from defendants or debtors?

Please identify whether such costs are absorbed locally, subsidised, written off, or reflected in Vote funding or fiscal forecasts.

 

2. Revenue Treatment

Where enforcement or litigation activity results in financial recovery (including costs awards, penalties, or recovered debts):

– Is that revenue retained by the enforcing authority or CCO; or

– Returned to the Crown, the Consolidated Fund, or otherwise offset against Vote funding?

Please provide any policy or guidance documents addressing this treatment.

 

3. Appropriations and Offsets

Do any Votes (including but not limited to Votes relating to Local Government, Justice, or Internal Affairs) assume, forecast, or rely upon offsetting revenue arising from enforcement, compliance, or litigation activity by councils or CCOs?

If so, please identify the relevant Votes and supporting documents.

 

4. Treasury Guidance

Please provide any Treasury circulars, guidance notes, internal policy documents, or frameworks that address:

– cost recovery expectations;

– allocation of fiscal risk for enforcement or litigation activity; or

– fiscal incentives or disincentives associated with enforcement outcomes.

 

5. Reporting and Visibility

Does Treasury receive reporting (formal or informal) from local authorities or CCOs regarding:

– enforcement volumes;

– litigation activity;

– unrecovered costs; or

– recovered revenues?

If so, please describe the nature, form, and frequency of such reporting.

 

6. Council‑Controlled Organisations

Are there any Treasury‑level distinctions in fiscal treatment between enforcement conducted directly by councils and enforcement conducted via CCOs or shared‑services entities?

Please provide any relevant documentation.

 

7. Risk and Accountability

How does Treasury assess, manage, or monitor fiscal risk arising from enforcement or litigation activity where proceedings are unsuccessful or costs are unrecovered?

Please provide any relevant risk assessments, frameworks, or evaluation documents

 

Request 7 (4 February):

This request is made under the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) and seeks full candour regarding:

       1.           Local election conduct, oversight, and funding in Rotorua, including any involvement of external providers or central government agencies; and

       2.           Clawback, incentive, or recovery payments connected to pensioner housing decisions, redevelopment, or housing transfers, including any financial flows linked to central government appropriations.

 

This request mirrors earlier OIA requests made in other districts (including Rangitīkei) where responses were partial, incomplete, or failed to address candour obligations. This request is therefore framed to remove ambiguity and requires full, substantive disclosure.

 

Part A – Rotorua Local Elections (Candour and Oversight)

 

Please provide the following information for Rotorua local authority elections for the last three completed election cycles:

       1.           Election management and providers

           •            The identity of the Electoral Officer(s) and any external election service providers engaged.

           •            Copies of contracts, scopes of work, and service agreements with any third-party election providers.

       2.           Oversight and accountability

           •            Records identifying which body or office held oversight responsibility for election integrity, audit, and verification.

           •            Any internal or external audit reports, reviews, or assurance statements relating to election conduct, voter rolls, counting, or results.

       3.           Candour obligations

           •            Any policies, guidance, or instructions relating to the duty of candour, transparency, or disclosure in local elections.

           •            Records of any concerns, complaints, or issues raised internally or externally regarding election integrity, process failures, or information withholding.

       4.           Information custody and retention

           •            Custody logs, retention schedules, and destruction policies for ballots, voter data, electronic records, and audit materials.

           •            Confirmation of whether any election materials were destroyed, when, by whom, and under what authority.

       5.           Central government involvement

           •            Correspondence with central government agencies relating to Rotorua elections, including funding, guidance, or risk management.

 

Interface

 

Please provide:

       1.           Records identifying whether pensioner housing decisions, transfers, or redevelopment plans were discussed, timed, or managed in proximity to local election periods.

       2.           Any risk assessments, communications, or strategy documents addressing electoral sensitivity, public reaction, or reputational management in relation to pensioner housing.

       3.           Correspondence between elected members, council staff, and third parties referencing election timing or electoral considerations.

 

 

Part C – Clawback, Recovery, and Incentive Payments

 

Please disclose in full:

       1.           All clawback, recovery, or incentive mechanisms applicable to Rotorua pensioner housing, including:

           •            Central government funding conditions;

           •            Housing transfers to community housing providers;

           •            Redevelopment, disposal, or reclassification of pensioner housing assets.

       2.           Payment flows

           •            The amounts, dates, recipients, and legal basis for any clawback or recovery payments made or anticipated.

           •            Any Treasury, departmental, or inter-agency accounting entries relating to these payments.

       3.           Appropriations and authorisations

           •            Vote names, appropriation references, and ministerial approvals relied upon.

           •            Any performance incentives, penalties, or recovery triggers linked to housing or redevelopment outcomes.

 

 

Part D – Prior OIA Handling and Completeness

 

Given previous OIA responses have been partial or non-substantive, please also provide:

       1.           Internal guidance, training, or instructions used by your organisation when responding to OIA requests.

       2.           Records explaining decisions to withhold, redact, or narrow prior responses relating to elections or pensioner housing.

       3.           Confirmation of whether any responsive information exists but was previously not disclosed.

 

Statutory Requirements

    •            This request seeks existing documents and records, not opinions.

    •            Please provide information in electronic form where possible.

    •            If any information is withheld, please:

           •            Identify the specific statutory ground relied upon; and

           •            Confirm whether partial release is possible.

 

If this request is transferred under section 14, please clearly identify the receiving agency and the precise scope transferred.

 

Request 8 (4 February):

Pursuant to the Official Information Act 1982, please provide the following information concerning the prosecution commonly referred to as the Barry Young case, in which the Crown characterised the alleged conduct as “tampering” with a computer system.

 

A. LAWFUL STANDARD

       1.           Please identify the lawful standard relied upon by Treasury when approving or continuing funding for a prosecution where:

           •            the accused accessed his own work computer,

           •            using lawfully issued credentials,

           •            during the course of employment, and

           •            without bypassing or defeating technical security controls.

       2.           Please provide any Treasury documents, briefings, or advice that assess whether such authorised access constitutes unlawful access or tampering on a lawful standard.

 

B. FUNDING BASIS

       3.           Please identify the Vote(s), appropriation(s), and budget line(s) under which Treasury funds were applied to support this prosecution.

       4.           Please provide copies of any Treasury approvals, sign-offs, or correspondence authorising or continuing funding for this prosecution.

       5.           Please confirm whether Treasury considered the Crown’s use of the term “tampering” as a characterisation of conduct or as evidence of technical interference when approving funding.

 

C. WHISTLEBLOWING / PUBLIC INTEREST

       6.           Please identify any Treasury policies, guidance, or risk assessments considered where a prosecution arises from conduct associated with disclosure of matters of public concern or whistleblowing-adjacent activity.

 

D. CLAWBACK AND FISCAL RISK

       7.           Please provide any Treasury analysis concerning clawback, fiscal risk, or remedial liability arising from funding prosecutions that may be found to:

           •            rely on characterisation of intent rather than unauthorised conduct, or

           •            be inconsistent with lawful standards or whistleblower protections.

       8.           Please advise whether Treasury has any mechanism to reassess or recover funding if a prosecution is later determined to be improperly framed or an abuse of process.

 

FORM OF RESPONSE

 

This request is for documents and records, not summaries.

 

If any part of this request is refused, please:

    •            identify the precise statutory ground relied upon, and

    •            explain why the public interest in release does not outweigh that ground.

 

Request 9 (4 February):

1. Treasury Funding Authority

Please provide all documents, appropriations, delegations, internal guidance, or decision records relied upon by Treasury to:

– Fund, reimburse, or otherwise financially support IRD activity connected to this matter;

– Fund judicial or court-related processes in the High Court and/or the Family Court  in relation to this matter.

 

2. Clawback, Reimbursement, and Cost Recovery

Please disclose:

– Whether Treasury operates any clawback, reimbursement, or cost-recovery mechanisms in relation to IRD enforcement activity or court proceedings connected to this matter;

– The legal, policy, or contractual basis for any such clawback;

– How clawback amounts are calculated and triggered;

– Whether clawback applies where proceedings are discontinued, procedurally defective, or later found to lack lawful authority.

 

3. Lawful Basis and Risk Assessment

Please provide:

– Any Treasury policies, guidance, or risk assessments addressing the funding of cases where:

  – The underlying conduct is disputed as unlawful or ultra vires;

  – Serious criminal allegations (including violence-related matters) are not investigated or acted upon;

  – Protection orders are alleged to have been ignored, unenforced, or absent from the record.

– Any assessment undertaken by Treasury of fiscal or legal risk arising from funding such matters.

 

4. Oversight of Courts and Agencies

Please disclose:

– Treasury’s role (if any) in monitoring or reviewing the lawfulness, proportionality, or fiscal exposure of matters funded through IRD enforcement or court processes;

– Any reviews, audits, or advice (internal or external) concerning Treasury-funded matters involving IRD, the High Court, or the Family Court that raised concerns about legality, procedural integrity, or misuse of public funds.

 

5. Communications

Please provide copies of all correspondence (including emails, briefings, aide-memoires, and internal notes) between Treasury and:

– Inland Revenue;

– Crown Law;

– The Ministry of Justice;

relating to funding, clawback, reimbursement, or fiscal risk for matters involving IRD enforcement and proceedings in the High Court or Family Court (Dunedin).

 

If any part of this request is considered too broad, please identify the specific limb and propose a refinement in accordance with section 13 of the Official Information Act.

 

If any information is withheld, please specify the precise statutory ground relied upon and whether partial release with redactions is possible.

 

Many thanks, and I look forward to hearing from you.