Decision-making criteria for the vetting team
S Liu made this Official Information request to Oranga Tamariki—Ministry for Children
Response to this request is long overdue. By law Oranga Tamariki—Ministry for Children should have responded by now (details and exceptions). The requester can complain to the Ombudsman.
From: S Liu
Dear Oranga Tamariki—Ministry for Children,
I would like to find out the decision-making criteria used by the vetting team when making determinations for Vulnerable Children Act 2014 requests. I would also like to find out the channel to dispute its determination.
Yours faithfully,
S Liu
From: OIA_Requests (OT)
Kia ora S Liu
Please see our response to your request.
Kind Regards,
Ministerial Support
PO Box 546, Wellington 6140
* E: [1][email address]
Dear Oranga Tamariki—Ministry for Children,
I would like to find out the decision-making criteria used by the vetting
team when making determinations for Vulnerable Children Act 2014 requests.
I would also like to find out the channel to dispute its determination.
Yours faithfully,
S Liu
------------------------------- This email message is intended solely for
the person or entity to which it is addressed. The information it contains
may be confidential and legally privileged. Any retransmission,
dissemination or other sharing of the contents of this email with
unauthorised persons may be unlawful. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify us immediately and destroy all copies of this
email. Thank you. Oranga Tamariki-Ministry for Children accepts no
responsibility for changes made to this email or to any attachments after
transmission. ------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
From: S Liu
Dear OIA_Requests (OT),
This is not the information I was requesting at all. To provide some context, an external employer made a Vulnerable Children's Act vetting request to OT, and I am aware that the vetting could come back in one of three possible outcomes. I'm trying to understand what is the decision-making process behind OT's assigning a vetting request to each level, and what can I do to dispute this finding as it is completely inaccurate and prejudicial to my employment prospect.
Yours sincerely,
S Liu
From: OIA_Requests (OT)
Kia ora S Liu,
Thank you for your email. Unfortunately, Oranga Tamariki does not have a
specific channel for just challenging the vetting process. If something
comes up on someone's background check it is reviewed by the People Leader
and they will determine the risk associated with what is disclosed and
whether to proceed with the applicant. Vetting is completed in accordance
with the requirements of the specific role.
In your case, if you wish to pursue things further, Oranga Tamariki will
need to go back to the role that was applied for, and speak to the People
Leader who conducted the hiring and ask them to provide some more detail
around the vetting disclosed. This will need to be supported by both
Recruitment and HR. if you wish to contact the recruitment team, please
email [1][email address].
Nāku noa, nā
Ministerial Support
PO Box 546, Wellington 6140
* E: [2]OIA [email address]
Dear OIA_Requests (OT),
This is not the information I was requesting at all. To provide some
context, an external employer made a Vulnerable Children's Act vetting
request to OT, and I am aware that the vetting could come back in one of
three possible outcomes. I'm trying to understand what is the
decision-making process behind OT's assigning a vetting request to each
level, and what can I do to dispute this finding as it is completely
inaccurate and prejudicial to my employment prospect.
Yours sincerely,
S Liu
------------------------------- This email message is intended solely for
the person or entity to which it is addressed. The information it contains
may be confidential and legally privileged. Any retransmission,
dissemination or other sharing of the contents of this email with
unauthorised persons may be unlawful. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify us immediately and destroy all copies of this
email. Thank you. Oranga Tamariki-Ministry for Children accepts no
responsibility for changes made to this email or to any attachments after
transmission. ------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]
From: S Liu
Dear OIA_Requests (OT),
I do not believe that whoever is handling this request is reading it thoroughly at all! The request still speaks as if I was talking about OT's internal hire process, when it's external organisations that made the vetting request. Also to provide context, those were not "employers" because of OT's vetting precluded me from employment altogether.
To make it explicitly clear, I want to know why my (or anyone else's) vetting request came back as "may be of concern"-- what policy, procedure, or criteria guided such decisions? And what can I do if I disagree with the finding?
Yours sincerely,
S Liu
From: OIA_Requests (OT)
Kia ora S Liu,
Thank you for your email. When Oranaga Tamariki completes vetting on
behalf of external agencies for potential employees, the information
provided is deemed confidential and is not released by us externally.
If you wish to query this further, we recommend engaging directly with the
external agency who made the vetting request.
Nāku noa, nā
Ministerial Support
PO Box 546, Wellington 6140
* E: [1]OIA [email address]
------------------------------- This email message is intended solely for
the person or entity to which it is addressed. The information it contains
may be confidential and legally privileged. Any retransmission,
dissemination or other sharing of the contents of this email with
unauthorised persons may be unlawful. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify us immediately and destroy all copies of this
email. Thank you. Oranga Tamariki-Ministry for Children accepts no
responsibility for changes made to this email or to any attachments after
transmission. ------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
From: S Liu
Dear OIA_Requests (OT),
I was prompted to return to this request after "someone" had tried to close this request. I will leave this request open until the matter is settled.
This request has now been escalated to the Office of the Ombudsman. The intention for making the initial request was to aid my understanding for a different matter involving OT (also currently in front of the Ombudsman). OT has repeatedly demonstrate its unwillingness to cooperate to resolve the dispute, and still tried to gaslight and deflect my question even in a public forum. I now have obtained some information on OT's decision-making criteria through another channel, the very criteria whose existence OT refused to acknowledge in this request. OT circled back to its "just engage with the external agency" line which they've used to stonewall my request in the first place, therefore washing their hands off any responsibility for making decisions based on incorrect information. OT not only made a mistake, they made it an onus on the affected individual to prove the mistake.
At this point I feel like this request has turned into a public demonstration of OT's utter incompetence. It was not a difficult request: I was deemed "may be of concern" in an OT vetting, released to a prospective employer, I want to know why. I disagree with their decision, I want to know how to work with OT to resolve this. Instead I was met with hostility, silent treatment, gaslighting... every step of the way, even in a public forum, OT felt comfortable to deflect my question. OT's lack of reading comprehension in this process raises the question of its ability to make correct assessments-- or perhaps OT was willfully manipulating information to suit its own narrative. OT's arrogance shown throughout this process shows that some oversight and accountability for OT are long overdue. The fact that OT is in charge of making impactful decisions when they couldn't even UNDERSTAND an OIA request is beyond absurd, and this request now serves no purpose other than a public calling-out of OT's behaviour.
Yours sincerely,
S Liu
From: S Liu
Dear OIA_Requests (OT),
OT claimed that the vetting process cannot be challenged in an earlier response, this was a misrepresentation of what I was asking in this OIA request. I now have confirmation that the vetting outcome can be contested-- by speaking to OT! This was what I did in the first instance, I was given the runaround and hence Ombudsman got involved. It looks like the only way to stop OT from misinterpreting and gaslighting is to involve the Ombudsman.
Yours sincerely,
S Liu
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid requests for Official Information (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this requestAct on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Police checks for people who wish to care for an uplifted child
To Oranga Tamariki—Ministry for Children by francesca ephraim
Rate of acceptance into psychology internship programmes in the past 5 years
To University of Auckland by S Liu
