Evidence-Based Decision-Making OIA sent to lse ministerial servicing mbie.govt.nz

 

 

I request the following information under the Official Information Act 1982.

 

This request concerns the way government departments, Ministers, public-sector agencies, and decision-makers assess whether public decisions are actually beneficial to ordinary New Zealanders before those decisions are implemented.

 

The issue is one of public importance. Many New Zealanders are facing serious cost-of-living pressure, including food, housing, rates, energy, fuel, insurance, compliance costs, and debt pressure. At the same time, public decisions continue to impose taxes, levies, fees, restrictions, digital systems, compliance obligations, reporting requirements, and policy changes that may affect people’s ability to live, work, grow food, use land, operate small businesses, and meet basic household needs.

 

I therefore request the following information.

 

1. Public benefit test

 

Please provide all current policies, frameworks, guidance, Cabinet Office materials, Treasury guidance, public service guidance, or internal agency documents that explain how decision-makers assess whether a proposed public decision will produce a practical public benefit for ordinary New Zealanders.

 

This includes any test, checklist, template, or framework requiring decision-makers to consider whether a proposal will:

 

a. make life easier or harder for ordinary people;  

b. reduce or increase household costs;  

c. improve or worsen access to food, housing, work, energy, transport, land use, or small business activity;  

d. reduce or increase compliance burden;  

e. reduce or increase public debt, private debt, or financial hardship;  

f. create a real, measurable public benefit rather than merely an administrative, political, fiscal, or departmental benefit.

 

2. Livelihood and food affordability impact

 

Please provide any current guidance, policy, framework, modelling requirement, or assessment process used to evaluate whether public decisions may affect:

 

a. food affordability;  

b. people’s ability to put food on the table;  

c. people’s ability to grow food or vegetables on their own land;  

d. small-scale food production;  

e. land-use freedom and practical access to productive land;  

f. rural, household, or small-business livelihoods.

 

 3. Cost-of-living and cumulative burden assessment

 

Please provide any current documents that require decision-makers to consider the cumulative burden of government decisions on the public, including the combined effect of:

 

a. taxes;  

b. levies;  

c. fees;  

d. rates;  

e. fuel costs;  

f. energy costs;  

g. insurance costs;  

h. housing costs;  

i. compliance costs;  

j. digital system costs;  

k. administrative burden;  

l. public-sector cuts or service reductions.

 

Please include any documents explaining whether decision-makers are required to assess the combined effect of multiple government decisions on the same person, household, farmer, landowner, beneficiary, pensioner, or small business.

 

 4. Evidence relied on before decisions are made

 

Please provide all current guidance or policy documents explaining what evidence must be relied on before a public decision is made.

 

In particular, please provide documents explaining how decision-makers distinguish between:

 

a. evidence;  

b. modelling;  

c. assumptions;  

d. behavioural theories;  

e. political opinion;  

f. departmental preference;  

g. fiscal savings;  

h. public benefit.

 

5. Decisions based on assumptions about public behaviour

 

Please provide any current guidance, policy, briefing, research, or framework concerning the use of behavioural assumptions in public decision-making, including assumptions that members of the public can avoid financial pressure by changing personal behaviour such as smoking, drinking, driving, eating habits, household spending, or other lifestyle choices.

 

For clarity, this request includes documents concerning whether government agencies are required to verify that such assumptions are fact-based before they are used to justify taxes, levies, restrictions, public messaging, enforcement, or policy design.

 

 6. Accountability for harm caused by public decisions

 

Please provide all current documents that identify how responsibility is assigned where a public decision causes foreseeable harm, including financial hardship, loss of livelihood, reduced access to services, increased food insecurity, loss of land use, or increased compliance burden.

 

Please include any documents explaining:

 

a. who is accountable for the decision;  

b. whether an individual decision-maker must be identified;  

c. whether a Minister, chief executive, board, delegate, contractor, or automated system is responsible;  

d. whether there is any requirement to record the name, position, delegation, evidence relied upon, and risk assessment completed before the decision was made;  

e. whether affected members of the public have any practical process to challenge the decision before harm occurs.

 

 7. AI, digital systems, and automated decision-making

 

Please provide current documents concerning the use of AI, digital tools, automated systems, algorithms, or data-driven systems in public decision-making, including any documents requiring assessment of:

 

a. risk to the public;  

b. human review;  

c. bias or unfairness;  

d. privacy impact;  

e. livelihood impact;  

f. cost burden;  

g. appeal or correction rights;  

h. accountability where an automated or digital process produces a wrong or harmful outcome.

 

 8. Public-sector cuts and service impact

 

Please provide current documents requiring assessment of whether public-sector workforce reductions, restructuring, or digitisation may reduce service quality, increase delay, increase hardship, reduce access to human decision-makers, or shift cost and burden onto the public.

 

9. Decision Authority Certificate / equivalent record

 

Please advise whether your agency uses, requires, or recognises any document equivalent to a “Decision Authority Certificate” recording:

 

a. the decision-maker’s name;  

b. position;  

c. statutory authority;  

d. delegation;  

e. evidence relied upon;  

f. assumptions relied upon;  

g. risk assessment;  

h. public benefit assessment;  

i. hardship assessment;  

j. review or appeal pathway;  

k. accountability if the decision is later shown to be wrong, unreasonable, unlawful, or harmful.

 

If no such document exists, please state that clearly.

 

10. Scope and form of response
 

 

To avoid unnecessary burden, this request is limited to current or recently relied-upon documents, policies, frameworks, templates, briefings, guidance, and decision-making tools.

 

I am not seeking every internal email at this stage.

 

If the request is considered too broad, please do not refuse it without first assisting me to refine it under section 13 of the Official Information Act. I am willing to narrow the request to formal or authoritative documents relied upon by the agency.

 

Please provide the information electronically.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Tracy lynch