The Official Information Act 1982 applies to information held by government agencies, Crown entities, and local authorities. A grants programme run by any of these organisations is OIA-accessible: the applications received, the assessment records, the decision documents, the conflict of interest declarations, the correspondence with applicants, and the rationale for funding decisions can all be requested.
OIA requests targeting grants programmes come from several sources. Declined applicants who believe their application was unfairly assessed. Journalists investigating how public money is being distributed. Opposition politicians looking for politically sensitive decisions. Researchers studying funding patterns in specific sectors. Occasionally, successful applicants looking to understand why their competitors were also funded.
The frequency of grants-related OIA requests is increasing. Transparency advocates have become more organised. Access to public sector information is increasingly regarded as a right rather than a concession. Grants programmes that are not designed with OIA in mind will eventually face a request that reveals documentation gaps they did not know existed.
Funding decisions for specific rounds. Applications received, eligibility assessments, assessment scores, panel recommendations, and final decisions. This is the most common category of grants-related OIA request.
Rationale for specific decisions. Why was application X funded over application Y? Why was an applicant that scored higher than the funded applicant not funded? These questions are hardest to answer when funding decisions departed from assessment recommendations without documented justification.
Conflict of interest records. Did any assessors declare conflicts of interest? What conflicts were declared and how were they managed? Were any conflicts not declared that should have been?
Declined applicant feedback. What feedback was provided to declined applicants? Was feedback consistent across similar applications?
Grant conditions and accountability. For active or completed grants, what conditions were imposed and were they met? Are there cases where conditions were breached without consequence?
Process documentation. How was the assessment process designed? Who was involved? Were the published criteria the ones actually used?
The most important principle for OIA readiness in a grants programme is contemporaneity: records should be created at the time the relevant action occurred, not assembled after the OIA request arrives.
An assessment panel that makes its recommendations in a meeting but does not minute those recommendations contemporaneously is, in effect, undocumentable. When an OIA request arrives asking for the panel's deliberations, the programme manager may be able to produce something — but it will be their reconstruction of what happened, not a contemporaneous record.
The OIA does not create documentation obligations. It reveals whether documentation obligations were being met. A programme with strong documentation practices has nothing to fear from an OIA request. A programme that has been managing decisions informally will discover its documentation gaps through an OIA response.
Not everything in a grants programme is disclosable under OIA. Common withholding grounds:
Section 9(2)(a) — Privacy of natural persons. Information about individual assessors' identities, or about individual applicants' personal circumstances, may be withheld where disclosure would breach privacy expectations. This is not a blanket protection: organisational information (applicants' track records, application content, financial information) is generally disclosable.
Section 9(2)(b)(ii) — Commercial sensitivity. Information about an applicant's finances, pricing, or commercial strategy may be withheld if disclosure would cause unreasonable prejudice. For most community and non-profit applicants, this ground is not available. For applicants who are commercial entities or who have commercially sensitive methodologies, it may apply.
Section 9(2)(f)(iv) — Confidential advice. Draft internal documents, including draft decision papers and working documents that reflect provisional views, may be withheld to protect the deliberative process. Final decision documents are not withheld on this basis.
Section 18(c) — Information not held. If the information requested was never created, the agency does not hold it and cannot disclose it. This is not a protection — it is a gap in the record that reveals a process failure.
OIA readiness is a by-product of a well-documented grants process. Programmes that create contemporaneous records of every material step — assessment scores, panel deliberations, decision rationale, conflict declarations — are OIA-ready without designing specifically for it.
Specific practices that improve OIA readiness:
Document the panel. Panel meetings should be minuted, with attendance recorded, decisions documented, and the basis for departures from assessment recommendations explicitly noted.
Record conflict declarations. COI declarations should be in writing (not just verbal), filed in the grants management system against the relevant application or round, and include what action was taken.
Record the assessment. Assessment scores should be entered into a system that timestamps the entry and attributes it to the assessor. Score changes should be logged. If scores are changed after initial entry, the reason should be documented.
Formalise applicant communications. Correspondence with applicants, particularly about eligibility, assessment queries, and decision communications, should be through channels that create a record. Email is adequate; verbal communications that are not followed up in writing are not.
Separate draft from final. Working documents and draft advice are potentially witholdable under section 9(2)(f)(iv). Final documents are not. Keeping a clear distinction between draft and final reduces the ambiguity about what is disclosable when a request arrives.
When an OIA request arrives, the programme needs to be able to locate and produce the relevant documents. This is straightforward with a purpose-built grants management system where all material actions are recorded in a searchable database. It is complex and time-consuming when records are spread across spreadsheets, email archives, shared drives, and paper files.
The 20-working-day statutory timeframe for OIA responses is not long when the work of finding, reviewing, and redacting responsive documents starts from scratch. Programmes with good documentation practices and a capable grants management system can typically respond more quickly and more completely than those without.
For government and Crown entity funders seeking to ensure their grants programmes are OIA-ready, the government grants management solution page covers how Tahua supports audit-trail documentation. To discuss documentation standards for your programme.
**.