FORMAL CHALLENGE — OIA-2026/27-0226

FORMAL CHALLENGE — OIA-2026/27-0226

I challenge DPMC’s decision of 6 October 2026.

My request was expressed in plain English: I sought all final advice and evidence placed before the Prime Minister concerning the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Authorisation of COVID-19 Orders) Notice 2022.

DPMC has narrowed that request by “interpreting” it as formal advice from DPMC to the former Prime Minister. That is not the request I made.

The issue is straightforward.

If the former Prime Minister was advised to exercise statutory power, then:

What exactly was the advice?

Who exactly provided it?

What evidence was placed before her?

What record shows that the factual and statutory basis for the exercise of that power was checked or verified?

These are questions concerning the lawfulness of an administrative decision.

I am not asking DPMC to assume that the decision was properly founded. I am asking for the contemporaneous record demonstrating whether it was.

DPMC also states that no public interest was identified sufficient to outweigh withholding.

That requires explanation.

The question is not simply whether confidentiality is administratively convenient. The question is what public interest was identified, what competing interests were considered, and how DPMC concluded that continued withholding was justified.

Where public power was exercised for the stated protection of the public, there is an obvious public interest in being able to verify:

• the evidence relied upon;
• who advised the decision-maker;
• whether the statutory requirements were satisfied; and
• whether the administrative process was directed to avoiding unjustified harm.

I therefore request that DPMC reconsider the decision and provide:

1. the advice placed before the Prime Minister;
2. the identity and official capacity of those who provided or approved that advice;
3. the evidence relied upon;
4. the record showing how that evidence was verified or assessed;
5. the statutory basis and preconditions identified for the decision; and
6. the grounds supporting DPMC’s conclusion that the public interest does not outweigh continued withholding.

If any particular passage properly requires protection, DPMC should identify the basis for that protection and release the balance.

If no record exists showing that the evidence was verified, please state that expressly.

This request is directed to the administrative record and the lawfulness of the exercise of public power.

By whose authority, on what evidence, and on what verified basis was the decision made?

Yours faithfully,

Tracy Lynch
iSaySo.net — We Review the Crown
NOT A LAWYER

[UNCLASSIFIED]

 

Kia ora

 

Please find attached a letter regarding your recent OIA request.

 

Ngā mihi

 

Ministerial Coordinator

Ministerial Services

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

E [email protected]