An independent watchdog has found a decision by the Prime Minister's Office regarding an official information request was "unreasonable".
The Chief Ombudsman John Allen said "information was effectively withheld from the requester without meeting the requirements of the OIA for withholding information."
He is recommending the Prime Minister review the decision and decide whether to make further relevant information available.
The request was made in March 2025 and sought information regarding a case between climate activist Mike Smith and major emitters.
As part of the investigation following a complaint, the Ombudsman's office consulted with the former Beehive staffer who received the lobbying document.
Allen found the use of a personal email address particularly concerning, and found it surprising the former staffer had no recollection of what he did with the lobbying document.
The complaint was laid with the Ombudsman by the Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) after it sought information in March 2025 about meetings, discussions or conversations regarding the case.
ELI said it received "only limited material" in response.
It came after RNZ reported in May that a previously undisclosed briefing document had been provided to the Prime Minister's office by Fonterra and Z Energy.
Christopher Luxon's office said at the time it had no record of the document that had since come to light following a court order, but reminded Ministerial Services of their obligations.
It was later revealed the document was emailed to a private account, which Luxon said did not meet his expectations.
As part of the decision, the Ombudsman outlined the timeline of events, further clarifying what information had been circulated by companies involved in the case.
The decision also specified the request made by ELI and the response from PMO.
During the investigation the Ombdusman was advised of a hard copy Z Energy addendum document that had also been provided to the then Chief Policy Advisor Matt Burgess, which hasn't yet been released publicly.
"It would appear no decision has therefore been made under the OIA whether to make it available to the requester," Allen wrote.
Allen stated the briefing note and associated documents were clearly provided to Burgess as part of his role in PMO, not in a "personal capacity."
As such the documents should be considered official information, he found. The Prime Minister's Office agreed with this.
"It appears neither the hard copy briefing note or addendum document provided to the then Chief Policy Advisor were saved into the Prime Minister's Office's IT systems.
"It was not known by the Prime Minister's Office whether the hard copies were retained, and if so, where they were stored," said Allen.
He noted this meant the staff managing the OIA request would not be able to locate the documents through conducting "reasonable searches of information" in scope of the request.
"This consultation process should have identified the existence of the briefing note and associated information, and that these were within the scope of the request.
"As a result of this not occurring, the documents were not considered by the decision-maker for the request and the information was effectively withheld from the requester without meeting the requirements of the OIA for withholding information.
"The handling of the request should have identified the briefing and associated documents and the failure to do so was unreasonable."
Burgess was consulted during the preparation of the original OIA response, and had provided a variety of documents in scope.
Neither the briefing note nor the Z Energy addendum document were identified or provided, nor were meetings with Fonterra and Z Energy.
"This consultation process should have identified the existence of the briefing note and associated information."
As part of the investigation, the Ombudsman's office also consulted with Burgess, the former Beehive staffer.
Burgess said the Chief Policy Advisor role was a "high-workload and high pressure" environment, involving managing very large volumes of information received in both written and oral form.
"He advised that his recollection is limited due to the events in question occurring between 13 and 24 months prior to the date of this opinion," Allen said.
Burgess advised he wasn't aware of the Z Energy addendum document until the Ombdusman told him about it.
Burgess also said he didn't recall what he did with the hard copy briefings, but advised that he "did not knowingly retain or destroy any document that may be a public record."
Burgess said he did not recall the OIA request but as far as he could recall, he "engaged with the request in good faith".
Allen said he found it surprising the former staffer had no recollection, given they related to a prominent issue and were provided by high profile companies, and the wording for the suggested legislative change in the briefing note was "ultimately reflected in the proposed changes to the Climate Change Response Act 2002."
"These appear to have been documents of significance to informing the legislative process that followed.
"Identifying what happened with the hardcopy briefings goes beyond the mandate of my investigation under the OIA, but these are points that I will be raising as part of a referral to the Chief Archivist."
He acknowledged there would always be an element of "reliance" on staff, but that made it all the more important staff have the appropriate training.
Allen was told by Burgess it was "well documented" that the Department of Internal Affairs' (DIA) IT systems are "inadequate to deal with many files," and that contributed to the use of the personal email address for government business.
Allen found the use of personal email addresses particularly concerning.
His final decision specified he found the decision on the original OIA request provided to the Environmental Law Institute by the Prime Minister's Office was "unreasonable."
The Ombudsman's recommendations were as follows:
• The Prime Minister reviews and makes a decision on whether to make available the information contained in the Z Energy addendum document to the requester as a
• The Prime Minister provides this opinion to all ministerial staffers to remind them of their obligations to keep records and ensure that all relevant records in scope of
• Ministerial staffers in the Prime Minister's Office review their personal records to ensure all official information has been transferred to appropriate systems.
PMO has accepted the decision and recommendations, and apologised.
The Ombudsman also plans to engage with DIA to understand the steps its taking to prevent this type of event from happening in the future, and consider any further action.
In response, ELI told RNZ in light of the Ombudsman upholding its complaint, the organisation said the government needed to scrap the bill that would prevent companies being sued over climate change.
"It's clear the Bill is not in the public interest."
Separately, Labour's Camilla Belich had requested the Auditor General conduct a performance audit of the systems, controls and practices of record-keeping with PMO.
This was declined as the Ombudsman was already investigating a complaint about PMO's decision making on an OIA request relating to the issues raised by Belich.
Attempts made to gather information
Documents released to RNZ show there were at least two direct requests by the Prime Minister's office to a person now labelled as 'former PMO staff member' in the documents to provide information for the OIA request.
On 31 March - around a week after the OIA request was made by ELI - PMO wrote to the 'former PMO staff member' asking them to provide "as a matter of urgency" all information held in scope of that request.
Later, on 7 April, another email was sent asking for "any info you have in scope of the request below - need this in the next day or so."
"Any meetings with Fonterra - where litigation Smith v Fonterra was discussed.
"...anything you hold in relation to Smith v Fonterra"
Labour leader Chris Hipkins told RNZ Luxon's office was aware of lobbying material and didn't release it.
"If individuals were seeking information from Burgess before the existence of that material was publicly known, New Zealanders are entitled to know how they became aware of it in the first place."
He said transparency and accountability mattered.
"The public deserves confidence that Official Information Act processes aren't being manipulated or coordinated behind the scenes for political purposes."
PMO has been approached for comment.
