Table of Contents
Summarised by Centrist
The government says it is reviewing the burden of Official Information Act requests, but Marcus Ganley argues that the real transparency problem is discoverability. While information can be technically released, it may remain effectively buried.
According to Ganley, access to information is not just about whether something exists. It is also about who gets to see it easily, and who gets frozen out.
One telling example is that documents obtained under the OIA show Nicola Willis will control the guest list for this year’s Budget lock-up.
He says a Treasury report showing Willis would decide which media and analysts get access to the lock-up was not easily findable on the Treasury website. It existed, but only under the obscure title “October titles – Request for 7 Documents”, not under anything a normal reader would search for. In other words, the document was public in theory, but hidden in practice.
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has suggested the OIA may need to become more “efficient and practical”, even if that means releasing less information in some cases. Ganley’s argument is that this starts in the wrong place. The Act’s purpose is to increase the availability of official information and promote accountability, not simply to reduce workload.
Ganley says New Zealand’s system still leaves too much to discretion. Some agencies publish OIA releases, others do not.
Material that could be proactively released is often withheld until someone asks for it, partly because legal protections attach more clearly to requested disclosures than voluntary ones.
Ganley’s answer is to make publication of releases compulsory, publish more material by default, and organise it so the public can actually find and use it.
Editor’s note: Critics suggest that the cost of the Official Information Act is driven in large part by bureaucratic delay and duplication. If National wants to reduce that burden, it could require agencies to rely more heavily on existing rulings and guidance, rather than treating each request as a fresh procedural exercise. For example, if the Ombudsman has repeatedly said that a certain kind of background briefing should usually be released with names redacted, then officials should not spend weeks reinventing the analysis. They should apply that pattern quickly and move on.
