The scandal was described by some commentators as a significant challenge to public trust in police, though Police Commissioner Richard Chambers has said he believes New Zealanders accept this “comes down to a group of former leaders of New Zealand Police” and isn’t a reflection on the wider force.
After the November release of the IPCA report, the Herald asked police for details of the planning that went into addressing the report, as well as information about a protocol the Police Minister says police introduced that led him to not see emailed complaints about McSkimming.
Under the Official Information Act (OIA), agencies have up to 20 working days to make and communicate a decision on a request. Any information it has decided to release should be done without undue delay.
In this instance, after the Herald’s request, police in December said an extension was required, as allowed under the OIA, and a “substantive response to your request” would be provided by February 20 – last Friday – if not sooner.
This was because “consultations necessary to make a decision on the request are such that a proper response to the request cannot reasonably be made within the original time limit”.
However, there was no response or decision communicated from police by last Friday.
After the Herald followed up this week, a police representative replied apologising for the delay.
“Unfortunately, it is still being drafted and it will then progress through our internal review and approval process. I am unable to confirm a release date at this stage, but I can assure you we are endeavouring to get this to you as soon as practicable.”
The Herald sent a similar request for information to the Police Minister’s office last year. The office also extended its time limit until February 20, but unlike police, it released hundreds of pages of emails and text messages on Friday.
In Mitchell’s letter to the Herald, he said there was “significant public interest” in the issue so his office released a “comprehensive” bundle of information on McSkimming as opposed to just the specifically requested information.
According to guidance from the Ombudsman, the 20 working days should not be seen as “the de facto goal” for communicating a decision, “but the absolute maximum” unless there is an extension.
An agency’s “primary legal obligation is to notify the requester of the decision on the request ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’”.
The advice is that generally when a decision is made to grant information, the information “should be provided to the requester at the same time”.
The Ombudsman said in some cases agencies could be justified in communicating a decision and then providing the information at a later date so long as there is no “undue delay”.
This could occur in an instance where an agency intends to grant a request, subject to some redactions, but the process of preparing material will take a bit longer.
“If it looks like it will not be possible to meet either the original or an extended maximum time limit, the agency should consider contacting the requester to let them know the current state of play and reasons for the delay,” said the Ombudsman.
“Requesters will appreciate being kept informed, and may be more understanding if the agency ends up in breach of the timeframe requirements.”
The Ombudsman said if information will be provided after the decision, that should be clearly indicated in the notice of decision along with whether any information will be withheld and why.
Jamie Ensor is the NZ Herald’s Chief Political Reporter, based in the Press Gallery at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office. He was a finalist in 2025 for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.
