Partial transfer to Crown Law (ref: 88836)

I note that Te Tari Whakatau states that the Ministry of Justice declined the attempted transfer on the basis that my request “appears to be seeking opinion rather than official information”.

I object to that characterisation.

My request is not asking the Ministry to create a new opinion. It is asking for existing official information concerning the source, exercise, and accountability of authority exercised in the name of the Crown.

The original request specifically asks who or what acquired sovereignty, from whom or what it was acquired, what precisely was acquired, over which people and territory, by what lawful mechanism, and how that claimed authority became the authority exercised over people living here today.

Accordingly, please identify:

Who made the decision that my request was seeking “opinion rather than official information”.

The position or office held by that decision-maker.

The statutory authority, delegation, policy, or other lawful authority relied upon to make that determination.

The specific provision of the Official Information Act 1982 relied upon for the proposition that the information requested is outside the scope of official information because it concerns “opinion”.

What searches or enquiries were undertaken to determine whether the Ministry holds existing records, legal advice, constitutional material, policies, delegations, guidance, Cabinet material, departmental records, or other information responsive to the request.

Whether the Ministry distinguishes between:

 

asking it to create a new opinion, and

asking it to provide an existing opinion, advice, record, or other information already held.

My purpose is accountability.

Where public power is exercised in the name of the Crown over people, I am seeking to identify:

the lawful source of that authority;

the agency or office-holder exercising it;

the actual decision-maker;

the authority relied upon;

and the mechanism by which that decision-maker is held accountable for an unlawful, erroneous, unfair, or unsupported decision.

That is a request for identifiable information and accountability structures. It is not a request for philosophical commentary or a newly created legal opinion.

Please therefore reconsider the Ministry’s characterisation of the request, or provide the information above explaining the lawful and evidential basis upon which that characterisation was made.

Regards,

Tracy Lynch
We Review the Crown
not a lawyer