Re: Ministry for Primary Industries – Refusal under the Official Information Act 1982

OMBUDSMAN COMPLAINT

Re: OIA26-0024 – Refusal under section 18(h)
 

To: Office of the Ombudsman

Re: Ministry for Primary Industries – Refusal under the Official Information Act 1982
 

1. Overview

This complaint concerns the Ministry for Primary Industries’ refusal (OIA26-0024, dated 13 February 2026) to provide information regarding the internal processing and decision-making records relating to my earlier OIA request (OIA25-0685).

MPI declined the request under section 18(h), asserting it is “frivolous or vexatious”. That characterisation is not sustainable in law.

2. Nature of the Request

The follow-up request did not seek repetition of substantive policy material. It sought:
– Logging and allocation records;
– Identification of the decision-maker;
– Draft or final decision documents;
– Any extension, transfer, or refusal rationale;
– Confirmation of request status.

This is a request concerning administrative transparency and statutory compliance. It is squarely within the purpose of the Official Information Act 1982.

3. Misapplication of Section 18(h)

Section 18(h) requires a finding that the request is frivolous, vexatious, or trivial.

MPI’s reasoning appears to rely primarily on the volume of prior OIA requests. Volume alone does not meet the statutory threshold.

The request was specific, narrow, directed to a defined administrative issue, and limited in scope. There is no explanation in the refusal letter demonstrating how the request meets the legal test for vexatiousness.

No evidence of bad faith. No evidence of harassment. No evidence of abuse of process. The refusal is conclusory.

4. Failure to Provide Reasoned Justification

A lawful exercise of discretion requires identification of the statutory test, application of facts to that test, and a reasoned conclusion.

MPI provided none. Instead, the refusal rests on a generalised assertion referencing prior requests. That is insufficient to discharge the statutory burden.

5. Public Interest and Purpose of the Act

The request relates to whether statutory timeframes were met, whether refusal grounds were properly applied, and whether decision-making records exist. These matters go directly to accountability.

Refusing scrutiny of OIA processing itself undermines the purpose of the Act.

6. Relief Sought

I respectfully request that the Ombudsman:
1. Review MPI’s reliance on section 18(h);
2. Determine whether the refusal was lawfully made;
3. Recommend release of the requested administrative records; or
4. Require MPI to provide a properly reasoned decision.

7. Closing

This complaint is not about volume. It is about whether an agency can avoid scrutiny of its own statutory decision-making by labelling a transparency request “vexatious”. That is a matter warranting independent oversight.

Respectfully submitted,

Tracy