« Cancerous Daily Mail | Main | QuakePorn »
Three cheers for the OIA and one for the government
By Steven | February 22, 2011
I’m not sure whether the government’s document dump about the BMWs came as a result of an Official Information Act request. (If it wasn’t, then someone should put in an OIA request just in case the government has decided to hold anything back. That’s what the Labour government did in its Corngate document release).
Either way, though, the documents released are plainly embarrassing. Many governments around the world would not have released them. We can thank our official information disclosure regime for a political culture where this sort of transparency is expected. Perhaps we should also thank this government for taking its obligations seriously enough to provide a very quick disclosure (though we might be forgiven for suspecting that the government figured it was better to front-foot the issue and take the hit now rather than string it out and risk being ordered to reveal information by the Ombudsmen shortly before the election).
One other thought: it has been reported that the Solicitor-General has advised that some information cannot be released because of confidentiality promises in the BMW contract. I do hope that those drawing up and interpreting that contract, and those charged with giving advice about what we can be told about it, have borne in mind Jeffries J’s words in Wyatt C0 (NZ) Ltd v Queenstown Lakes District Council [1991] 2 NZLR 180, 191:
There cannot be allowed to develop in this country a kind of commercial Alsatia beyond the reach of a statute. Confidentiality is not an absolute concept admitting of no exceptions… It is an implied term of any contract between individuals that the promises of the contract will be subject to statutory obligations. At all times the applicant should have been aware of the provisions of the [Local Government Official Information and Meetings] Act and in particular s7, which effectively excludes contracts on confidentiality preventing release of information.
Topics: Official Information Act | 50 Comments »
50 Responses to “Three cheers for the OIA and one for the government”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 22nd, 2011 at 5:50 pm
If an OIA request was made it would be interesting to know what was behind our neutral public servants auctioning the OIA request so quickly? Was advice given if an OIA request comes in deal with it fast? Maybe it is what you suggest: get it over and done with – news cycles quickly move, memories fades. The Department of Internal Affairs may just good at dealing with OIAs – built up knowledge about proper behaviour from their days dealing with the Local Government legislation and tardy local bodies in the early days. Perhaps this is standard practice at the Department –when a request for urgency is made it isn’t treated as a declaration of nuclear war.
When an OIA is deemed politically sensitive game playing can be prone – it depends on the body. It is heartening it didn’t happen here (if indeed it was an OIA request). Why didn’t it happen? I don’t think the reason is because we have great legislation. It is easy to play games with our legislation. Sometimes it seems easier to play game than deal substantively with the request. All kinds of easy tricks could have been deployed in this case – you don’t even have to put much thought to it:
1) It was multi agency information – transfer the request, carry out consultation with agencies – and not just with the agencies but every single person or body tangentially related as a means to extend the time or the amount of work involved in dealing with the request. Ask BMW in Germany what they think.
2) Claim the commercial sensitivity ground, subject to an obligation of confidence, negotiations are continuing.
3) Claim legal privilege with regard to the solicitor general’s advice or the information generally – withhold or redact substantially.
4) Deploy the “due particularity” trick.
5) Substantial collation or research is required.
6) Information already substantially in the public domain.
7) On 20th working day reply without disclosing information but request reasons for the request or “please provide public interest submissions so we can carefully consider the request.” When received claim the public interest has moved on (even though PI is to be assessed at the time the request is received).
February 22nd, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Yes. Once again, most of these techniques (and others) are discussed in my OIA article on the toolbar.
We should note that, while these techniques are common, they are not all legal – at least in many of the circumstances where they are used.
May 20th, 2020 at 9:40 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
May 26th, 2020 at 10:39 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
July 29th, 2020 at 8:35 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
August 1st, 2020 at 5:22 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
August 6th, 2020 at 7:09 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
August 21st, 2020 at 2:12 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
August 24th, 2020 at 3:24 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 75679 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
August 24th, 2020 at 4:03 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
August 31st, 2020 at 9:07 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
September 1st, 2020 at 10:28 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
September 8th, 2020 at 9:13 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
September 29th, 2020 at 6:50 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
October 4th, 2020 at 9:23 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 55101 additional Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
October 6th, 2020 at 11:57 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
October 8th, 2020 at 1:43 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
October 31st, 2020 at 12:43 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
November 7th, 2020 at 4:19 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
November 8th, 2020 at 12:48 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 66210 more Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
November 10th, 2020 at 12:57 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
November 13th, 2020 at 12:48 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
November 21st, 2020 at 10:15 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
December 6th, 2020 at 1:59 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
December 9th, 2020 at 6:50 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
December 17th, 2020 at 6:17 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
December 19th, 2020 at 6:26 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
December 20th, 2020 at 7:17 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
December 21st, 2020 at 4:55 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
December 22nd, 2020 at 6:19 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
December 30th, 2020 at 6:53 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
January 6th, 2021 at 3:59 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
January 13th, 2021 at 3:07 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
January 25th, 2021 at 1:35 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
January 30th, 2021 at 4:39 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
February 4th, 2021 at 4:27 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
February 11th, 2021 at 7:54 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
February 13th, 2021 at 2:45 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
March 13th, 2021 at 9:52 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 45806 more Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
May 25th, 2021 at 6:42 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
June 29th, 2021 at 6:50 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
June 29th, 2021 at 11:31 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
July 3rd, 2021 at 10:52 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
July 7th, 2021 at 12:18 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
September 1st, 2021 at 11:04 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
October 8th, 2021 at 8:48 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
November 18th, 2021 at 2:25 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 60575 more Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
November 24th, 2021 at 12:47 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 15046 additional Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
December 11th, 2021 at 2:07 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 20530 more Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]
March 6th, 2022 at 6:49 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=435 […]