Dear Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet,

DPMC

We request the following information for the purpose of participating in the Royal Commission inquiry into the attack on Christchurch Mosques.

Relevant Operative Mentions
1. Copies of documents, correspondences and addresses (including but not limited to emails, letters, presentations) referring to any of the following terms:
a. Arab / Muslim / Islam / Islamist / Islamicist / Jihadist /
b. Terrorists / Extremists / Radical / Far-right / White supremacy

By any of the following Politicians for Period A
a. Winston Peters
b. Don McKinnon
c. Jim Bolger
d. Jenny Shipley
e. Warren Cooper

By any of the following Politicians for Period B
a. Phil Goff
b. Winston Peters
c. Phil Goff
d. Chris Carter
e. Trevor Mallard
f. Mark Burton
g. Don Brash

By any of the following Politicians for Period C
a. Simon Bridges
b. Judith Collins
c. Chris Finlayson
d. Winston Peters
e. Rodney Hide
f. Alfred Ngaro
g. Ron Mark

By any of the following Politicians for Period D
a. Winston Peters
b. Ron Mark
c. Andrew Little
d. Jenny Salesa
e. Kelvin Davis

2. What correspondence have Members of Parliament received from the Public for Periods A, B, C and D which include use of any of the following words:
a. Arab
b. Muslim (including its variant spellings)
c. Burqa (including its variant spellings)
d. Islamic
e. Islam

Training
3. What professional cultural advice or training or resources has the government requested or received on Islam or Muslims for periods A, B, C and D?

Policy Reform
4. What made the government form a task force to monitor for far-right extremism in July 2018?

5. Where did the bridge-building initiative between the government and Muslim Community post 9-11 originate from and what initiatives was it based on or influenced by?

6. Why have the government stopped trying to bridge build with the Muslim community? What was the shift in DPMC policy that deprioritised bridgebuilding?

7. What cultural intelligence and cultural awareness and sensitivity training and reform arose out of the consequences of the Ahmed Zaoui Case? 

8. What cultural intelligence and cultural awareness and sensitivity training and reform arose out of the consequences of the Urewera Raids? 

Royal Commission
9. What was the process for selecting the Royal Commission?

Consultation
10. Who is the government’s on-hand cultural advisor/negotiator/facilitator for:
a. On-going strategy
b. Emergency Situations

Diversity
10. What diverse perspectives have been embraced and resulted in reform of organisational culture that promotes diverse experiences and perspectives?

We request information for the following time periods:
Period A: October 2017 – present
Period B: November 2008 – October 2017
Period C: December 1999 – November 2008
Period D: November 1990 – November 1999

For the requests that ask for information from Periods A, B, C and D please note we do not require that all the information come through at once.
We request in order of this priority: Period A, then B, then C and finally period D.

Word-specific requests: please include variant spellings for these. E.g. For a request pertaining to “Muslim”, please include variants such as “Moslem”.

We appreciate that our requests are extensive. However, they are not disproportionate to the significance of the matters we are engaging in with the Royal Commission.

We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours faithfully,
Mahrukh Sarwar

To whom it may concern,

Thank you for responding to my OIA requests.

We note that these follow up requests are made several months after our original requests during which time you would have had the chance to consider many of the critical issues raised; these issues are raised for substantive reasons and regarding ongoing concerns of public safety and reliability of the assurances of safety.

Please note all of the clarifications and comments below, while arising in the context of individual requests, apply to all requests as a whole.

As a general question, we ask how the DPMC distinguishes information they would rather not disclose for public relation reasons (both domestically and through foreign relations) from the reasons you provided. We have noted that in several instances, information has been refused or partially answered without any compilation, disclosure or analysis of the information and without providing details for why information is theoretically prejudicial. Under section 19(a)(ii) of the Official Information Act, we are entitled to ask for the grounds in support of the reason for refusal. The High Court has stated that the test in section 6(a) requires evidence (Kelsey v Minister of Trade [2016] 2 NZLR).

You claim that some of our requests are unclear. Please refer to responses we have received from NZSIS, GCSB, MBIE, NZDF and Customs. These agencies show a thorough understanding of our requests.

Question One

Premature refusal

The information requested for has been withheld under s18(f) of the Official Information Act. Under sections 18A and 18B of the Official Information Act (OIA), you were required to consider whether the reason for refusal can be removed by either consulting us, fixing a charge or extending the time period for a response. Your response merely suggests your contention that a further extension of the timeframe would not enable the DPMC to provide a response, and you have decided this without any consultation with us. Failing to follow the steps in sections 18A and 18B of the Act was held by the High Court as unlawful (Kelsey v Minister of Trade [2016] 2 NZLR).

Ideally, you could have fixed a charge if you are to believe that collation of requesting documents is substantial.

This indicates that you have not made any effort to make this information available, despite the avenues set by Parliament which attempt at ensuring agencies engage with requests before refusal under section 18(f).

Contextual significance

The question asked is contextually significant legal and other processes in response to the Christchurch attacks, and will be useful for future prevention and research. We note the context of this request would appear to outweigh even substantial inconvenience to DPMC in the collation process. The context is highlighted by the historical significance of the Christchurch events, demanding the need for a comprehensive investigation which the Royal Commission and other civil society organisations are undertaking. DPMC is a primary agency in this regard and we would have expected that several months after the attacks the priority of this issue would by now be self-evident.

Timely collation

We allow DPMC’s consideration of any reasonable consequences to the extent of this request, such as focussing on the order of priority, and/or prioritising certain searches. In other words, you can decide which searches you consider inconvenient to take on first as per DPMC's operation processes or resource use etc. However, we request this is made available as soon as possible so as to inform the current surge of public resources already going into inquire into these matters, in comparison to which your agency's costs will pale into insignificance. We request being updated in whatever process is undertaken.

In your response, you refer to hard copy documents that DPMC holds. We simply request both the number and copies of these, which follows an easy process for collation. Refusing to provide these documents will become a general impediment to the transparency of OIA requests, here in light of Christchurch attacks. The purpose of this information is prevention through making recommendations. We invite you to reflect on how clearly the context of this request would appear to outweigh even substantial inconvenience to your agency.

We acknowledge that the number of documents is significant, but we note that this is not an individual case. Rather, it is a case of national importance and this should be evident to you.

Evident inaccuracy of given information

You confirm that no relevant Cabinet documents were identified regarding Winston Peters and any of the key words listed. However, the following information regarding Winston Peters and any of the key words listed is in the public realm.

The following link is one example among many where Winston Peters has made relevant statements in his Ministerial capacity: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/386....

Further, Hansard provides evidence where Winston Peters has made such generalised comments in Parliamentary proceedings. The following statement will indicate to you what you may already know or bring to light the extreme nature of his statements:

“What we know about the London Bridge attackers is that two of them arrived in the UK as immigrants. One was known to officials and even TV audiences, so we must ask: how could people plan such terrible deeds but leave their friends, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and spouses completely in the dark? Inevitably, we will be told that the wider community knew nothing, and neither did the friends or the family. How many times have you heard this disavowal? It is washing seriously thin. What is happening is that families, friends, and confidants are choosing to turn the other cheek, choosing silence, rather than turn these monsters in. That may be the culture of Damascus, but it is not ours. It may be acceptable in Tripoli, but it most certainly is not acceptable in New Zealand. While the Islamic community must clean house by turning these monsters in, it starts with their own families.” (1)

If Winston Peters is able to make such bold statements in public, then it is highly likely he has made similar statements within Cabinet. Therefore, we request a further confirmation from you that despite these statements in the public domain, you were unable to identify any Cabinet documents pertaining to Winston Peters and our list of key words.

Accordingly, we have been very disappointed with the lack of helpfulness of your responses to our requests and your dismissiveness without engaging in any of the clearly stipulated legal processes on such an important matter of public safety and significance.

Questions Three and Eleven:

We would like to confirm that for the relevant time periods provided, the only training provided regarding Islam and Muslims is on “functions and responsibilities of the Police”. Can you please provide more information as to how this provided insight into Islam, Muslims and embracing diversity.

Furthermore, the police has not responded to our OIA, which is a hindrance due to time constraints. Can you please explain what prevents DPMC from providing information on that presentation, given that it was presented to you?

Question Four:

Thank you for transferring this request to NZSIS. However, we are aware that DPMC receives advice from SIG’s NAB, which provides information to Cabinet and Ministers who set national intelligence priorities. We note that your response does not refer to NAB or SIG. We are requesting information within this context.

We request clarification as to why you did not refer to NAB or SIG. Further, are there any other relevant groups within your department that handle these issues?

Questions Five and Six:

Thank you for transferring Parts 5 and 6 to the DIA - Office of Ethnic Communities. We acknowledge that this policy was not led by DPMC. The information we request pertains to any information regarding bridge-building initiatives that DPMC does hold.

Questions Seven and Eight:

Ahmed Zaoui case

Thank you for transferring this request to MBIE. However, we are aware that DPMC receives advice from SIG’s NAB, providing information to Cabinet and Ministers who set national intelligence priorities, including such information relevant to Ahmed Zaoui’s case. We are requesting information within this context. We have asked NZSIS, and they have told us they do not hold any records regarding any cultural awareness change resulting from a particular incident. From your initial response, we gage that you do hold certain information. This request is simply interested in the information your agency, DPMC, holds regarding this request.

Clarifications

From your response, we take it that DPMC has no involvement in any changes or learnings as a result of the Zaoui case. In other words, DPMC has no interest in anything from this case of national and international significance.

Uruwera Raids

The Police is yet to respond to us, as evident in this link: https://fyi.org.nz/request/11234-informa...

We acknowledge that the Urewera raids were carried out by the Police, not DPMC. NAB, which falls under DPMC, assesses and advises on intelligence priorities. NAB would or ought to have addressed the raids in their priorities and hence hold the relevant information our request pertains to. We request this information as again, police have not responded to our OIA, and we are under time constraints.

From your response, we take it that DPMC has no involvement in any changes or learnings as a result of the Urewera raids. In other words, DPMC has no interest in anything from this case of national significance.

Regarding both Zaoui case and the Urewera raids, you confirm that you do not have any other information that is not held by other agencies. We note that these other agencies have not responded to our OIA requests. We also note that given the diversity of responses we will get from other agencies, we have specifically asked you for a response from DPMC itself, not any other agency.

We also note that these cases were of national significance and DPMC was involved. These cases were also international security issues, which is not only relevant to all levels of the government but is listed as a priority in National Security and Intelligence Priorities. This list was approved by the Cabinet.

We confirm that we haven't received anything from the agencies you refer to in relation to these cases.

Question Nine:

This request is not asking for the general selection process of the Royal Commissioners. Given the level of detail in the Cabinet framework, we expect that there would be a thorough process that was applied. We would like the details of that specific process of appointment and the criteria applied for the commissioners and counsel specifically.

As per Cabinet papers establishing the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Attack on Christchurch Mosques, Cabinet appointed Sir William Young as Chair and authorised the appointment of one other member of the Royal Commission. Our request pertains to specific information DPMC holds on the appointment of the selected members of the Royal Commission. This is not limited to those authorised by the Cabinet only.

We expect this information to include how many other candidates were considered and their general ability and criteria. Were there any candidates considered reflecting the cultural diversity of the incident? Or any who may have experiences that would provide them insight into the experiences of the victim community?

Question Ten

Please note our requests of police have not been successful. The information we are seeking from DPMC relates to the inter-agency coordination and leadership at a national level. Accordingly, we expect from this response the names of any details of advisors, negotiators and/or facilitators. We clarify that we expected details of your “expertise” utilised since for the periods of the requests provided (Periods A, B, C and D).

We acknowledge you have used particular groups from time to time, but you have not specified what group you have used at the time over those periods. We take from your response that DPMC has not identified any go-to expertise on these issues and simply focuses on what is available at the time.

We request any strategy for building a body of expertise which the DPMC can use on such issues, or we will infer from your response that DMPC does not have a strategy.

Further, we note that transferring or suggesting we liaise with other agencies is a recurring trend in your response. We must express that the information we seek from you is related to DPMC solely as we have requested this information from other agencies under OIA ourselves. We would not have requested this information from DPMC if they were not in a position to hold this information, which the as the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, we are aware that you do.

Unfortunately, you have continuously created an impediment to accessibility of information. Please note that accessibility to information is the purpose of the Act in question, as stipulated in s4.

We look forward to having correct and thorough responses from you.

Kind regards,
Mahrukh Sarwar

Footnotes:
1. https://www.parliament.nz/en/WatchParlia...

Dear Ministerial Services and DPMC,

It appears from the correspondence we have received that MBIE has taken over this request. We have not received any acknowledgement from the DPMC.

A central concern in our follow-up request is that DPMC avoids responsibility for properly answering the requests when it clearly is the more relevant central and/or coordinating agency given the nature of the subject matter and its sensitivity. Your transferring our request out of the DPMC again indicates that this concern has not been understood.

We also note that it is unclear who “them” refers to in the response received from MBIE.

Yours sincerely,
Mahrukh Sarwar