My own personal experience is with three common things. One is games where agencies take whatever view of the scope a request they deem is in their best interests - usually absurdly/kafka-esquly narrow - then add delays so that one gets no information and one's time wasted. Often connects with refusals under section 18(g).
Another is abuse of section 9(2)(b)(ii) by over-wide interpretation. Fisheries-related information is routinely withheld for these reasons but in principle very little of it "would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position" of anyone.
A third is an unwillingness to simply talk. If the principle of writing nothing down is a self-serving attempt to keep information in by a falsely narrow interpretation of the "information" (documents are not the same as information); this is a falsely wide interpretation of the very same term and the need to treat every query as an OIA.
The common thread is a defensive and combative culture, going with "knowing best" perhaps.
The legislation may benefit from allowing easier access to judicial review. It is all well (and very positive) to have access to the Ombudsman but it is slow in a justification-culture context where speed can be everything. The way the Ombudsman "works with the agency" in its reviews does not always have the appearance of a strictly neutral arbiter either, though it is usually very good. Recourse to the Courts, which could unleash a flood of claims and therefore change behaviour very quickly, could help. But have not thought this through fully.
The PRA points are good. I once suggested that I might go to the Archivist on suggestion from an agency that something major had been lost due to a computer crash, upon which that excuse promptly disappeared.
Too many of my OIA requests are answered incompletely because of the poor record keeping and inadequate filing systems of government departments. The excuse that it would take too long to find the requested information is a common response.
In my experience the reliance on electronic record keeping in the public service seems to be largely devoid of protocols for naming files and for using keywords to allow easy searching for information held electronically.
These are deficiencies that should be addressed via the Chief Archivist and the enforcement of the Public Records Act in conjunction with addressing the deficiencies of the operation of the Official Information Act.
With the demise of an acceptably unbiased, truth seeking, professional MSM, it has never been more urgent to ensure that the paraphernalia for achieving Government (both central and local) transparency is effective, efficient and comprehensive. But then who is going to champion that cause, certainly not our (yet another) dud PM, who runs for the hills at the sight of anything that's societally difficult and not about economics.
I think we can all cite instances to support Peter Boshirer's comment- "the rules are sound it's just the players aren't following them"
e.g. in 2013 the Minamata Convention was introduced with obligations of states to find all sources of mercury into the environment and report those those within 3 years. Responses to my OIA requests have shown that neither EPA nor MoH have any records of this being followed. Does this mean no record can be found or is it "lost" to appear at a later date/.
In the meantime our mothers and children are subject to mercury toxicity from fluoridated water and dental amalgam fillings and the mercury potentiating the toxic effects on the brain of other heavy metals in fluoridated drinking water.
I think the taxpayer also needs to know how much time, and therefore taxpayer money, gets used in responding to OIAs - I don't know of an organization that records the amount of time and therefore cost spent that each OIA consumes - I think it would add up to a pretty big figure overall. I am not suggesting that it is a waste of money, just that the public should know how much gets spent on it, so they can balance the benefits of transparency, with the extra costs to the taxpayer.
Plus, I believe that with rights come responsibilities. There are definitely people and organisations out there that use the OIA not just to get information, but also to deliberately slow down the work of government agencies by bombarding them with requests. Perhaps some information on who is costing the taxpayer money by making OIA requests should be made public? Maybe not right down to the individual person/organisation requesting a response under the OIA (though, frankly, why not - if you want transparency that costs the taxpayer money then why not be willing to be transparent about your use of the OIA too?) At very least the amount of time and costs should be collected under broad categories of who requested it - like media/journalists, MPs and political parties, private individuals, etc - maybe a special category for the The Taxpayers Union given they so hate to see waste in the public sector, so should be very judicious in their use of the OIA?
Nothing has changed for the better. As you discuss they have just got better at never creating a discoverable document. No paper trail. Disturbing people are being actively trained in avoidance tactics. Worse still when serious crimes are being covered up and criminals identities actively protected. The privacy act was NOT designed for that purpose.
Nick, would love to read the article you link - - have tried to access but it is paywalled. If this site gives you free shares, could you kindly provide one, or briefly share what this article says? Thanks 🙏🏻
These news briefs are important such that people who don't look at or hear serious information prefering mainstream etc are missing out. How to make this happen? Much of the stuff coming from here can be used to develop policies for a serious political organisation. My hope is that someone with courage who doesn't engage w hacks, doesn't surround themselves with slimy ideologues = appears soon to bring down this useless system of fake democracy, dirty capitalism and fascistic pussycat liberalism currently dominating NZ. A wise, knowledgeable tough guy/tough gal in charge - wise & knowledgeable being the key need. How about Helen Clark, Geoff Palmer and a smart former National Party duo get together to consider alternatives for NZ? Id start with instituting an actual progressive tax system and a hui between NZ original Maori and Pakeha.
This is an excellent piece.
My own personal experience is with three common things. One is games where agencies take whatever view of the scope a request they deem is in their best interests - usually absurdly/kafka-esquly narrow - then add delays so that one gets no information and one's time wasted. Often connects with refusals under section 18(g).
Another is abuse of section 9(2)(b)(ii) by over-wide interpretation. Fisheries-related information is routinely withheld for these reasons but in principle very little of it "would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position" of anyone.
A third is an unwillingness to simply talk. If the principle of writing nothing down is a self-serving attempt to keep information in by a falsely narrow interpretation of the "information" (documents are not the same as information); this is a falsely wide interpretation of the very same term and the need to treat every query as an OIA.
The common thread is a defensive and combative culture, going with "knowing best" perhaps.
The legislation may benefit from allowing easier access to judicial review. It is all well (and very positive) to have access to the Ombudsman but it is slow in a justification-culture context where speed can be everything. The way the Ombudsman "works with the agency" in its reviews does not always have the appearance of a strictly neutral arbiter either, though it is usually very good. Recourse to the Courts, which could unleash a flood of claims and therefore change behaviour very quickly, could help. But have not thought this through fully.
The PRA points are good. I once suggested that I might go to the Archivist on suggestion from an agency that something major had been lost due to a computer crash, upon which that excuse promptly disappeared.
Too many of my OIA requests are answered incompletely because of the poor record keeping and inadequate filing systems of government departments. The excuse that it would take too long to find the requested information is a common response.
In my experience the reliance on electronic record keeping in the public service seems to be largely devoid of protocols for naming files and for using keywords to allow easy searching for information held electronically.
These are deficiencies that should be addressed via the Chief Archivist and the enforcement of the Public Records Act in conjunction with addressing the deficiencies of the operation of the Official Information Act.
With the demise of an acceptably unbiased, truth seeking, professional MSM, it has never been more urgent to ensure that the paraphernalia for achieving Government (both central and local) transparency is effective, efficient and comprehensive. But then who is going to champion that cause, certainly not our (yet another) dud PM, who runs for the hills at the sight of anything that's societally difficult and not about economics.
I think we can all cite instances to support Peter Boshirer's comment- "the rules are sound it's just the players aren't following them"
e.g. in 2013 the Minamata Convention was introduced with obligations of states to find all sources of mercury into the environment and report those those within 3 years. Responses to my OIA requests have shown that neither EPA nor MoH have any records of this being followed. Does this mean no record can be found or is it "lost" to appear at a later date/.
In the meantime our mothers and children are subject to mercury toxicity from fluoridated water and dental amalgam fillings and the mercury potentiating the toxic effects on the brain of other heavy metals in fluoridated drinking water.
MfE and MBIE have the habit of not answering questions to OIA requests.
They prefer to make references to website links and say read them. You will find the answer there (somewhere)
How crazy lazy is that for our woke DEI beauacrate?
I think the taxpayer also needs to know how much time, and therefore taxpayer money, gets used in responding to OIAs - I don't know of an organization that records the amount of time and therefore cost spent that each OIA consumes - I think it would add up to a pretty big figure overall. I am not suggesting that it is a waste of money, just that the public should know how much gets spent on it, so they can balance the benefits of transparency, with the extra costs to the taxpayer.
Plus, I believe that with rights come responsibilities. There are definitely people and organisations out there that use the OIA not just to get information, but also to deliberately slow down the work of government agencies by bombarding them with requests. Perhaps some information on who is costing the taxpayer money by making OIA requests should be made public? Maybe not right down to the individual person/organisation requesting a response under the OIA (though, frankly, why not - if you want transparency that costs the taxpayer money then why not be willing to be transparent about your use of the OIA too?) At very least the amount of time and costs should be collected under broad categories of who requested it - like media/journalists, MPs and political parties, private individuals, etc - maybe a special category for the The Taxpayers Union given they so hate to see waste in the public sector, so should be very judicious in their use of the OIA?
Nothing has changed for the better. As you discuss they have just got better at never creating a discoverable document. No paper trail. Disturbing people are being actively trained in avoidance tactics. Worse still when serious crimes are being covered up and criminals identities actively protected. The privacy act was NOT designed for that purpose.
https://detective.nz/news/29-03-2024/sensitive-files-redacted/
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i6AbL9kLbY4
Nick, would love to read the article you link - - have tried to access but it is paywalled. If this site gives you free shares, could you kindly provide one, or briefly share what this article says? Thanks 🙏🏻
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zyQFotwgdGs
These news briefs are important such that people who don't look at or hear serious information prefering mainstream etc are missing out. How to make this happen? Much of the stuff coming from here can be used to develop policies for a serious political organisation. My hope is that someone with courage who doesn't engage w hacks, doesn't surround themselves with slimy ideologues = appears soon to bring down this useless system of fake democracy, dirty capitalism and fascistic pussycat liberalism currently dominating NZ. A wise, knowledgeable tough guy/tough gal in charge - wise & knowledgeable being the key need. How about Helen Clark, Geoff Palmer and a smart former National Party duo get together to consider alternatives for NZ? Id start with instituting an actual progressive tax system and a hui between NZ original Maori and Pakeha.