Official Information Act 1982

File:Conference on Facilitating the Entry into Force of the CTBT - Flickr - The Official CTBTO Photostream (18).jpg introduced the act to Parliament]]

Prior to 1982, official information was assumed to be the property of the government, not the people.Law Commission (1997), para C12.{{cite report |author=Steven Price |date=November 2005 |title=The Official Information Act 1982: A Window on Government or Curtains Drawn? |url=http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/downloads/OP_Price.pdf |publisher=New Zealand Centre for Public Law |page=3 |access-date=15 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190129091550/http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/downloads/OP_Price.pdf |archive-date=29 January 2019 |url-status=live }} Under the Official Secrets Act 1951, disclosure of information by public servants without specific reason and authorisation was a criminal offence.{{cite report |date=December 1980 |title=Towards Open Government: General Report |url=https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/sites/default/files/2019-03/Danks%20general.pdf |publisher=Office of the Ombudsman |page=5 |access-date=2 July 2020 |quote=The [Official Secrets] Act assumes that official information is the property of government, and should not be disclosed without specific reason and authorisation. Those who want information must take the initiative and provide justification, and those who supply it must ask themselves whether they have authority and good reason to do so. Criminal sanctions are attached to “wrongful communication”.}}{{cite book |title=Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand |last=Joseph |first=Philip A |publisher=Brookers |location=Wellington |date=2001 |isbn=0-86472-399-7 |pages=148–149 |quote=The statutory presumption [was] that official information was government property and was not to be released unless (a) circumstances supported an implied authority to disclose and (b) there were implicitly good reasons for doing so. |edition=2nd }} The law "positively discouraged information release".Joseph (2001), p. 149 However, from the 1960s onwards, there was increasing pressure for openness. In 1962, a Royal Commission of Inquiry into state services declared that "Government administration is the public’s business, and that the people are entitled to know more than they do of what is being done, and why."{{cite report |date=October 1997 |title=Review of the Official Information Act 1982 |url=https://www.lawcom.govt.nz/sites/default/files/projectAvailableFormats/NZLC%20R40.pdf |publisher=New Zealand Law Commission |pages=145–148 |access-date=15 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180124032552/http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/sites/default/files/projectAvailableFormats/NZLC%20R40.pdf |archive-date=24 January 2018 |url-status=live }} The creation of the Office of the Ombudsman and changes of administrative law created a presumption that people were entitled to know the reasons for decisions made about them. Environmental campaigns such as the Save Manapouri campaign and the passage of freedom of information legislation overseas created further pressure. A freedom of information bill was introduced to parliament by opposition Labour MP Richard Prebble in 1977 but this failed to progress beyond a second reading.{{Cite web|url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b2940162&view=1up&seq=52|title=New Zealand Parliamentary Debates. (1977). Freedom of Information Bill (2nd reading) (Vol. 411, pp. 799–810).|access-date=2019-06-26}} In 1979, the Coalition for Open Government explicitly campaigned for greater access to official information as part of its opposition to Robert Muldoon's Think Big programme.{{cite web |url=https://teara.govt.nz/en/freedom-of-official-information/page-1 |title=Freedom of official information: From secrets to availability |publisher=Te Ara: the Encyclopedia of New Zealand |author=Nicola White |date=20 June 2012 |access-date=16 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181016203226/https://teara.govt.nz/en/freedom-of-official-information/page-1 |archive-date=16 October 2018 |url-status=live }}

In 1978 the government established the "Committee on Official Information" (also known as the "Danks Committee" after its chair{{cite book |title=Information Rights: Law and Practice |last=Coppel |first=Philip |publisher=Hart Publishing |location=Portland, OR |date=2014 |page=59 |isbn=978-1-84946-424-6 |quote=The Committee is commonly referred to as the Danks Committee and the reports as the Danks Report. }}) for the purpose of "considering the extent to which official information can be made readily available to the public". As part of this, the committee was to review the application of the Official Secrets Act 1951 and "advance appropriate recommendations on changes in policies and procedures which would contribute to the aim of freedom of information".{{cite report |date=December 1980 |title=Towards Open Government: General Report |url=https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/sites/default/files/2019-03/Danks%20general.pdf |publisher=Office of the Ombudsman |access-date=1 July 2020 }} In 1980 it reported back, recommending the replacement of the Official Secrets Act with a new Official Information Act, based on a principle of openness. In 1981 the committee released a supplementary report with recommendations about the oversight and administration of the act and the treatment of classified information.{{cite report |date=July 1981 |title=Towards Open Government: Supplementary Report |url=https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/sites/default/files/2019-07/Danks_supplementary.pdf |publisher=Office of the Ombudsman |access-date=1 July 2020 }} In 1982 these ideas were passed into law as the Official Information Act by the National Government. Former Prime Minister and Law Commissioner Geoffrey Palmer credits then-Minister of Justice Jim McLay for the act, saying that he managed to pass it in the face of opposition from both Prime Minister Robert Muldoon and the Treasury.{{cite web |url=https://www.lawcom.govt.nz/sites/default/files/audioFiles/Palmer%20Speech%20on%20Official%20Information%20Act.pdf |title=A HARD LOOK AT THE NEW ZEALAND EXPERIENCE WITH THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT AFTER 25 YEARS |last=Palmer |first=Geoffrey |date=27 November 2017 |access-date=29 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200121153849/https://www.lawcom.govt.nz/sites/default/files/audioFiles/Palmer%20Speech%20on%20Official%20Information%20Act.pdf |archive-date=21 January 2020 |url-status=live }}

As originally enacted,{{cite web |url=http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/oia19821982n156224/ |title=Official Information Act 1982 (1982 No 156) |publisher=New Zealand Acts As Enacted |access-date=29 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305072017/http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/oia19821982n156224/ |archive-date=5 March 2016 |url-status=live }} the act included a clause protecting information regarding "competitive commercial activities" by the government, and included no deadline for responding to requests. Agencies merely had to respond "as soon as reasonably practicable", which led to frequent delays. Ministers could also over-rule a decision by the Ombudsman to release information simply by recording that decision in writing. The act underwent major reform in 1987 to provide further transparency.Official Information Amendment Act 1987 A public interest test was imposed for commercially sensitive information, the 20 working day time limit was imposed, and over-ruling the Ombudsman now required a formal Order-in-Council. Since then the act has received only minor, technical amendments, and its major features have remained unchanged.

The scope of the act is extremely broad compared to other international freedom of information laws,{{cite web |url=https://teara.govt.nz/en/freedom-of-official-information/page-2 |title=Freedom of official information – The Official Information Act in operation |last=White |first=Nicola |publisher=Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand |date=20 June 2012 |access-date=2 July 2020}} and includes all information held by any Minister in their official capacity, or by any government department or organisation (as listed in the schedules to the act or the Ombudsmen Act 1975). This includes almost all government agencies, including ministries, intelligence agencies, hospitals, universities, schools, crown entities, and state-owned enterprises. Some non-government agencies are also included, such as certain officers of parliament. The act does not apply to the courts, the Parliamentary Service, quasi-judicial agencies such as the Independent Police Conduct Authority and Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, or to local government (which is covered by the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987).{{cite web |url=http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/system/paperclip/document_files/document_files/2457/original/the_oia_for_agencies.pdf?1516146865 |title=The OIA for Ministers and agencies: A guide to processing official information requests |publisher=Office of the Ombudsman |date=June 2016 |page=5 |access-date=17 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180127051841/http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/system/paperclip/document_files/document_files/2457/original/the_oia_for_agencies.pdf?1516146865 |archive-date=27 January 2018 |url-status=dead }}

The act applies to "information", regardless of form, not just documents, and includes "not only recorded data but also knowledge of a particular fact or state of affairs held by officers in a named organisation or Department in their official capacity".{{cite magazine |last1=Elwood |first1=Brian |last2=Satyanand |first2=Anand |date=September 1998 |title=Application of Official Information Legislation to Non-documentary Information |url=http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/ckeditor_assets/attachments/42/4-3.pdf |magazine=Ombudsmen Quarterly Review |volume=4 |issue=3 |publisher=Office of the Ombudsman |access-date=17 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180127131556/http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/ckeditor_assets/attachments/42/4-3.pdf |archive-date=27 January 2018 |url-status=dead }} This technology-neutral definition has allowed the act to cope with the significant changes in information technology since the 1980s. Information held in an official capacity by employees, and information held by subcontractors, subsidiary companies, and unincorporated advisory bodies is all captured by the act.OIA, section 2.

The act creates a regime by which people can request and receive information held by government officials and bodies. Any person in New Zealand, or any New Zealand citizen or permanent resident, can lodge a request.OIA, section 12. Requests must specify the information they are seeking with "due particularity" and can be made in any form and communicated by any means.{{cite web |url=http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/system/paperclip/document_files/document_files/2465/original/making_oi_requests_-_guide_for_requesters.pdf?1516146924 |title=Making official information requests: A guide for requesters |publisher=Office of the Ombudsman |date=June 2016 |access-date=16 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180127051933/http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/system/paperclip/document_files/document_files/2465/original/making_oi_requests_-_guide_for_requesters.pdf?1516146924 |archive-date=27 January 2018 |url-status=live }} They can be made online,{{cite web |url=http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/system/paperclip/document_files/document_files/2469/original/online_requests.pdf?1516146949 |title=Requests made online: A guide to requests made through fyi.org.nz and social media |publisher=Office of the Ombudsmen |date=April 2016 |access-date=16 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180127052754/http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/system/paperclip/document_files/document_files/2469/original/online_requests.pdf?1516146949 |archive-date=27 January 2018 |url-status=dead }} and there is no requirement for requesters to provide reasons for their request, or even their real name.{{cite web |url=https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/top/367998/ombudsman-may-launch-investigation-into-oia-saga |title=Ombudsman may launch investigation into OIA saga |publisher=RNZ |date=5 October 2018 |access-date=16 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181016125934/https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/top/367998/ombudsman-may-launch-investigation-into-oia-saga |archive-date=16 October 2018 |url-status=live }}

Agencies subject to the act have a statutory duty to provide reasonable assistance to requesters,OIA, section 13. and must transfer requests for information held by other bodies to the appropriate agency so that the request can be answered.OIA, section 14. Agencies must make a decision on whether to release requested information as soon as reasonably practicable, with an upper limit of 20 working days{{efn|The Act defines a working day as any day other than a Saturday, a Sunday, Waitangi Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Anzac Day, Queen’s Birthday and Labour Day; the following Monday if Waitangi Day or Anzac Day fall on a Saturday or Sunday; and all days between 25 December and 15 January.OIA, section 2.}} after receiving the request, though this time-limit can be extended for large or complex requests.OIA, section 15A. Organisations may charge for responding to large requests, but this is rare.Price (2005), p. 25 Any charge set must be reasonable.{{cite web |url=http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/system/paperclip/document_files/document_files/2227/original/charging_june_2017.pdf?1498813017 |title=Charging: A guide to charging for official information under the OIA and LGOIMA |publisher=Office of the Ombudsman |date=June 2017 |access-date=16 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180127021530/http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/system/paperclip/document_files/document_files/2227/original/charging_june_2017.pdf?1498813017 |archive-date=27 January 2018 |url-status=live }}

The guiding principle of the New Zealand act is the principle of availability which states: "That information shall be made available unless there is good reason for withholding it". "Good reason" is defined in the act, and is split into two categories: "conclusive reasons", which are not subject to a public interest test, and "other reasons", which must be balanced against the public interest in release. Conclusive reasons for agencies to withhold information include:OIA, section 6.

• releasing the information would compromise the national security or international relations of New Zealand. An additional clause protects the security and international relations of dependent territories such as Tokelau and states in free association such as the Cook Islands and Niue.OIA, section 7.
• the information requested was supplied by another government in confidence
• releasing the information would compromise the maintenance of the law, (including but not limited to the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences, and the right to a fair trial.)
• releasing the information would endanger a person's safety
• releasing the information would cause severe economic damage.

Other reasons to withhold information include:OIA, section 9.

These reasons must always be balanced against the public interest in release. The Ombudsman has extensive guidance available on public interest factors which may apply to any particular request, including transparency, participation, accountability, and the administration of justice.{{cite web |url=http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/system/paperclip/document_files/document_files/1991/original/public_interest_june_2017.pdf?1498081531 |title=Public interest: A guide to the public interest test in section 9(1) of the OIA and section 7(1) of the LGOIMA |publisher=Office of the Ombudsman |date=June 2017 |access-date=16 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180127021555/http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/system/paperclip/document_files/document_files/1991/original/public_interest_june_2017.pdf?1498081531 |archive-date=27 January 2018 |url-status=live }} Only limited withholding grounds apply to requests for internal rules affecting decisions,OIA, section 22. or to requests by individuals for the reasons for decisions about them.OIA, section 23.

Finally, official information requests can also be refused for administrative reasons. These include:OIA, section 18.

• releasing the information would contravene another act of Parliament
• releasing the information would constitute contempt of court or Parliament
• the requested information relates to criminal disclosure and can be sought under the Criminal Disclosures Act 2008
• the requested information does not exist or cannot be found.
• releasing the information would require substantial collation or research
• the requested information is already publicly available or will soon be made publicly available.
• the requested information is not held by the requested agency, and it does not believe any agency subject to the act holds such information
• the request is frivolous or vexatious, or the information requested is trivial. (e.g. a request to verify that MP David Seymour is not a hologram.){{cite web |url= http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/67196078/act-leader-not-a-hologram |title= ACT leader: not a hologram |publisher= Stuff.co.nz |date= 10 March 2015 |access-date= 10 February 2016 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20151119113553/http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/67196078/ACT-leader-not-a-hologram |archive-date= 19 November 2015 |url-status= live }}

Requests may be refused only in part, and information made available as redacted documents.OIA, section 17. Where any part of a request is refused, agencies are required to provide reasons, and advise the requester that they have the right to ask the Ombudsman to investigate whether or not that decision is justified under the provisions of the act.

File:Geoffrey Palmer.jpg strengthened the act, and restricted the Ministerial veto provision]]

Most decisions made under the act can be appealed to the Ombudsman, including decisions to withhold or charge for information, or extend a request deadline.OIA, section 28. Failure to respond to a request (known as "delay deemed refusal"{{cite web |url=https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/sites/default/files/2019-03/ar_20010-11_0.pdf |title=Report of the Ombudsmen Te Tari-o-Nga Kaitiaki Mana Tangata for the year ended 30 June 2011 |publisher=Office of the Ombudsman |date=2011 |page=A.3 |access-date=4 July 2020}}) can also be appealed. Decisions to transfer requests are not specifically mentioned, and so can only be investigated where they are made by agencies, using the Ombudsman's general jurisdiction under the Ombudsmen Act 1975. Transfer decisions by Ministers can not be appealed or investigated.{{cite web |url=http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/system/paperclip/document_files/document_files/1225/original/part_4a__role_of_the_ombudsman_on_review.pdf?1450323412 |title=Role of an Ombudsman on Review |publisher=Office of the Ombudsman |access-date=16 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180127070040/http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/system/paperclip/document_files/document_files/1225/original/part_4a__role_of_the_ombudsman_on_review.pdf?1450323412 |archive-date=27 January 2018 |url-status=dead }}

If they find a complaint is justified, the Ombudsman can make formal recommendations, including to release information.OIA, section 30. These recommendations are legally binding upon agencies, imposing a public duty to implement them.OIA, section 32. Initially such a recommendation could be overturned by a Minister giving a directive in writing, but in 1987 the act was amendedOfficial Information Amendment Act 1987, section 18. so that vetoing an Ombudsman's decision required an order in council.OIA, section 32(2). No Ombudsman's decision has been vetoed since the amendment was passed.Law Commission (2012), p. 250.

In addition to the complaints procedure under the act, the general procedures of government agencies (but not Ministers) in handling OIA requests are subject to the Ombudsman's jurisdiction under the Ombudsmen Act 1975. This has led to a series of "practice investigations", aimed at improving general OIA practice across government.{{cite web |url=http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1804/S00068/ombudsman-seeking-better-oia-practices.htm |title=Ombudsman seeking better OIA practices |publisher=Office of the Ombudsman |date=6 April 2018 |access-date=16 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181016130004/http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1804/S00068/ombudsman-seeking-better-oia-practices.htm |archive-date=16 October 2018 |url-status=live }}

The act originally contained provisions for individuals to access and correct personal information about themselves. These provisions were replaced by the Privacy Act 1993, but a legacy provision still covers corporate entities.OIA, part 4.

The act requires the Ministry of Justice to produce a directory of official information, setting out the functions, structure, contact details, and information held by each agency subject to the act.OIA, section 20.

The act provides immunity from civil and criminal proceedings for good faith decisions to release information under the act. This includes immunity from defamation, breach of copyright, and breach of confidence, and covers the crown, public servants, and the original authors of any information released.OIA, section 48.

The act initially included the creation and functions of an Information Authority, charged with managing the implementation of the act. The initial members were Alan Danks (who had chaired the Danks Committee), Ian Lithgow and Shirley Maddock.{{cite news |title=Sir Alan watchdog |url=https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19821220.2.36 |access-date=3 May 2023 |work=The Press |date=20 December 1982 |page=4}} These provisions expired in 1988, and the authority was dissolved.OIA, part 6 and section 53.

Initially dismissed as a "nine-day wonder" by Prime Minister Robert Muldoon, the act has since been recognised as a part of New Zealand's unwritten constitution.{{cite web |url=https://dpmc.govt.nz/our-business-units/cabinet-office/supporting-work-cabinet/cabinet-manual/introduction |title=On the Constitution of New Zealand: An Introduction to the Foundations of the Current Form of Government |work=Cabinet Manual |publisher=Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Parliament Buildings |location=Wellington |date=2017 |access-date=2 July 2020}} The Court of Appeal has said that "the permeating importance of the act is such that it is entitled to be ranked as a constitutional measure".{{cite web |url=http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/newsroom/item/30-years-of-the-oia-in-nz |title=30 years of the OIA in NZ |publisher=Office of the Ombudsman |date=1 July 2013 |access-date=16 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181016165216/http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/newsroom/item/30-years-of-the-oia-in-nz |archive-date=16 October 2018 |url-status=dead }}{{cite court |litigants=Commissioner of Police v Ombudsman |volume=[1988] 1 |reporter=NZLR |opinion = 385 |pinpoint=391 |court=Court of Appeal of New Zealand }} The Law Commission has said that it is "central to New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements".Law Commission (2012), p. 25 It has significantly changed the culture of government, leading to a culture of openness under which a great deal of information is made public as a matter of routine.{{cite web |url=https://teara.govt.nz/en/freedom-of-official-information/page-3 |title=Freedom of official information – What has the Official Information Act achieved? |author=Nicola White |publisher=Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand |date=20 June 2012 |access-date=16 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181016170534/https://teara.govt.nz/en/freedom-of-official-information/page-3 |archive-date=16 October 2018 |url-status=live }}{{cite book |title=Constitutional Conversations: Geoffrey Palmer Talks to Kim Hill on National Radio 1994–2001 |last1=Palmer |first1=Geoffrey |last2=Hill |first2=Kim |publisher=Victoria University Press |location=Wellington |date=2002 |isbn=0-86473-445-X |page=233 |quote=This Act has profoundly changed the nature of our government - it has opened it up in ways that really could not have been anticipated. }}{{cite book |chapter=Open Government in New Zealand |last=Aitken |first=Judith |title=Open Government: Freedom of Information and Privacy |editor1-last=McDonald |editor1-first=Andrew |editor2-last=Terrill |editor2-first=Greg |publisher=MacMillan Press |location=Houndmills |date=1998 |isbn=978-1-349-14731-1 |page=132 |quote=there has been a significant shift in the culture of the public service from secrecy to openness... Government departments now appear more willing to make information available proactively, in some cases as a deliberate strategy to improve the basis on which the public can make decisions. }} It is seen as having enabled other transparency reforms, such as the Privacy Act, Public Finance Act, and Fiscal Responsibility Act.Law Commission (1997), para E10.{{cite web |url=http://www.privacy.org.nz/assets/Files/67725421.pdf |title=THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT AND PRIVACY: NEW ZEALAND'S STORY |last=Shroff |first=Marie |date=16 June 2005 |page=3 |access-date=2 July 2020}} The expectation of eventual public scrutiny is also believed to have significantly improved the quality of advice to government.Law Commission (1997), para E18.

File:PeterThielOIA.jpg's application for New Zealand citizenship.]]

Approximately 45,000 requests are made under the act each year, with over 90% of them answered within statutory timeframes. The act is routinely used by political parties, journalists, lobbyists and individuals to gain a wide range of information, from government policy and statistics to information about decision-making, and "useful – and even embarrassing – information is regularly released".Price (2005), pp 27–29. However, there has been constant friction between requesters complaining that information is disclosed reluctantly and state agencies concerned about the time and cost of meeting requests.Law Commission (1997), para E15. There is evidence that there are significant differences in treatment between uncontroversial and politically sensitive requests, and frequent claims in the media that the law is being violated.{{cite web |url=https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11327317 |title=Listen to audio interview: Ex-govt lawyer's 'bury bad news' claim |work=New Zealand Herald |date=19 September 2014 |access-date=16 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181016204749/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11327317 |archive-date=16 October 2018 |url-status=live }}{{cite web |url=https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/261975/media-body-takes-aim-at-govt-oia-delay-tactics |title=Media body takes aim at Govt OIA delay tactics |publisher=RNZ |date=17 December 2014 |access-date=17 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181016165042/https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/261975/media-body-takes-aim-at-govt-oia-delay-tactics |archive-date=16 October 2018 |url-status=live }}{{cite web |url=https://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11347187 |title=David Fisher: OIA a bizarre arms race |work=New Zealand Herald |date=23 October 2014 |access-date=17 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181016165416/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11347187 |archive-date=16 October 2018 |url-status=live }} Then-Prime Minister John Key admitted explicitly delaying the release of information to suit the interests of the government,{{cite web |url=https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/257009/pm-admits-govt-uses-delaying-tactics |title=PM admits Govt uses delaying tactics |publisher=RNZ |date=16 October 2014 |access-date=16 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181016165157/https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/257009/pm-admits-govt-uses-delaying-tactics |archive-date=16 October 2018 |url-status=live }} while in another case the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service was found to have provided a speedy release to a blogger in order to embarrass the leader of the opposition.{{cite web |url=http://www.igis.govt.nz/assets/Inquiries/FINAL-REPORT-INTO-THE-RELEASE-OF-INFORMATION-BY-NZSIS-IN-JULY-AND-AUGUST-2.pdf |title=Report into the release of information by the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service in July and August 2011 |publisher=Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security |date=25 November 2014 |access-date=17 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190115140451/http://www.igis.govt.nz/assets/Inquiries/FINAL-REPORT-INTO-THE-RELEASE-OF-INFORMATION-BY-NZSIS-IN-JULY-AND-AUGUST-2.pdf |archive-date=15 January 2019 |url-status=live }}

Notable information released under the act includes:

• In the leadup to the 2005 New Zealand general election the government was forced to reveal the costings of its interest-free student-loan policy,{{cite web |url=https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10345523 |title=Cullen releases student loan costings |publisher=New Zealand Herald |date=14 September 2005 |access-date=29 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120319213610/http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10345523 |archive-date=19 March 2012 |url-status=live }} with the Ombudsman completing the investigation in less than a week in order to ensure the information was released in time for the election.{{cite web |url=https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/sites/default/files/2019-03/Request%20for%20Treasury%20costings%20of%20interest-free%20student%20loans%20policy.pdf |title=Request for Treasury costings of interest-free student loans policy |publisher=Office of the Ombudsman |date=October 2005 |access-date=29 June 2020}}
• In 2010, details of Ministerial credit card spending from 2003 to 2008 was released under the act.{{cite web |url=http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3793561/Spotlight-on-MPs-spending |title=Spotlight on MPs' spending |publisher=Stuff |date=14 June 2010 |access-date=29 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121114143945/http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3793561/Spotlight-on-MPs-spending |archive-date=14 November 2012 |url-status=live }} The information embarrassed several former Ministers, including Shane Jones, who was revealed as having used his Ministerial credit card to purchase hotel pornography.{{cite web |url=http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/3798193/Shane-Jones-Minister-of-Pornography |title=Shane Jones, Minister of Pornography |publisher=Stuff |date=10 June 2010 |access-date=29 June 2020}} Such information is now proactively released every quarter by the government.{{cite web |url=https://www.dia.govt.nz/Ministers-expense-releases |title=Ministers' expense releases |publisher=Department of Internal Affairs |access-date=29 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200125045439/https://www.dia.govt.nz/Ministers-expense-releases |archive-date=25 January 2020 |url-status=live }}
• In 2016 the Ombudsman ruled that legal advice to the Ministry of Health on the interpretation of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004 should be made public, as the protection of legal professional privilege was outweighed by the public interest in knowing how the law would be interpreted and applied by officials.{{cite web |url=https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/resources/legal-professional-privilege-outweighed-significant-public-interest-release-information |title=Legal professional privilege outweighed by significant public interest in release of information |publisher=Office of the Ombudsman |date=16 February 2016 |access-date=29 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200512172044/https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/resources/legal-professional-privilege-outweighed-significant-public-interest-release-information |archive-date=12 May 2020 |url-status=live }}
• In 2017 documents released under the act revealed that billionaire Peter Thiel had been granted New Zealand citizenship in 2011 under an "exceptional circumstances" clause despite having spent only 12 days in New Zealand, and stating that he had no intention of living there.{{cite web |url=https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11883554 |title=Controversial billionaire Peter Thiel made a Kiwi after two-week holiday |publisher=New Zealand Herald |date=29 June 2017 |access-date=29 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200615233021/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11883554 |archive-date=15 June 2020 |url-status=live }} The "exceptional circumstances" cited by the Minister was that Thiel was very rich, leading to allegations that he had effectively bought his citizenship.{{cite web |url=https://theintercept.com/2017/02/01/billionaire-trump-adviser-peter-thiel-bought-his-new-zealand-citizenship-documents-show/ |title=Billionaire Trump Adviser Peter Thiel Bought His New Zealand Citizenship, Documents Show |author=Sam Biddle |publisher=The Intercept |date=2 February 2017 |access-date=29 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200416103255/https://theintercept.com/2017/02/01/billionaire-trump-adviser-peter-thiel-bought-his-new-zealand-citizenship-documents-show/ |archive-date=16 April 2020 |url-status=live }}
• In 2018 the New Zealand Defence Force was forced to confirm that the location of an Afghanistan village in the book Hit & Run was the same place where an SAS raid, Operation Burnham took place.{{cite web |url=https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/102239531/defence-force-admits-books-location-right-but-denies-civilian-casualties |title=Defence Force admits book's location right, but denies civilian casualties |author=Cate Broughton |publisher=Stuff |date=14 March 2018 |access-date=29 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181221114908/https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/102239531/defence-force-admits-books-location-right-but-denies-civilian-casualties |archive-date=21 December 2018 |url-status=live }} The SAS raid was subsequently the subject of a government inquiry.{{cite web |url=https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/government-hold-inquiry-operation-burnham-after-allegations-in-book-hit-run |title=Government to hold inquiry on Operation Burnham after allegations in book Hit & Run |publisher=1News |date=11 April 2018 |access-date=29 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190306040506/https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/government-hold-inquiry-operation-burnham-after-allegations-in-book-hit-run |archive-date=6 March 2019 |url-status=live }}

The act has been reviewed repeatedly over its lifetime, and there have been several suggestions for reform.

In 1992 the New Zealand Law Commission conducted a limited review of the operation of the act, and specifically its time limits, the processes around large and broadly defined requests, charging provisions, and the ability of the executive to veto release. The review did not report back until 1997 due to the transition to MMP and recommended reducing the time limit for requests to 15 working days as well as a number of technical and administrative reforms. A few of the latter were implemented via a Statutes Amendment Bill in 2003, but core recommendations were not.Law Commission (2012), p. 29

The Law Commission reviewed the act again in 2012, and recommended expanding the scope of the act to cover the parliamentary service and remove inconsistencies, replacing the Ombudsman with a specialist Information Commissioner, and expanding the act to cover proactive release, as well as a number of administrative and technical changes. This was to be implemented through a rewritten act, which would cover both central and local government.{{cite report |date=June 2012 |title=The Public's Right to Know: Review of the Official Information Legislation |url=https://www.lawcom.govt.nz/sites/default/files/projectAvailableFormats/NZLC%20R125.pdf |publisher=New Zealand Law Commission |access-date=15 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190123052313/https://lawcom.govt.nz/sites/default/files/projectAvailableFormats/NZLC%20R125.pdf |archive-date=23 January 2019 |url-status=live }} The government adopted a number of minor technical reforms, but rejected any significant change.{{cite web |url=https://www.lawcom.govt.nz/sites/default/files/governmentResponseAttachments/Government%20Response%20to%20R125.pdf |title=Government Response to Law Commission Report on The Public's Right to Know: Review of the Official Information Legislation |publisher=NZ Government |date=4 February 2013 |access-date=16 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190123052325/https://lawcom.govt.nz/sites/default/files/governmentResponseAttachments/Government%20Response%20to%20R125.pdf |archive-date=23 January 2019 |url-status=live }}

A review by Chief Ombudsman Beverley Wakem in 2015 focused on the implementation of the act by government agencies. It found no evidence of political interference in the handling of requests but noted that nearly 80% of senior managers had never received any training in responding to OIA requests and that most government agencies did not have proactive policies for the timely release of information.{{cite web |url=https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11557858 |title=Official Information Act review finds no evidence of political interference |work=New Zealand Herald |date=8 December 2015 |access-date=17 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181016165432/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11557858 |archive-date=16 October 2018 |url-status=live }} It made numerous recommendations for improving agency OIA practices, but did not recommend any changes to the legislation itself.{{cite report |date=December 2015 |title=Not a game of hide and seek: Report on an investigation into the practices adopted by central government agencies for the purpose of compliance with the Official Information Act 1982 |url=http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/system/paperclip/document_files/document_files/1573/original/not_a_game_of_hide_and_seek_-_review_of_government_oia_practices.pdf?1466555782 |publisher=Office of the Ombudsman |access-date=16 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180127042045/http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/system/paperclip/document_files/document_files/1573/original/not_a_game_of_hide_and_seek_-_review_of_government_oia_practices.pdf?1466555782 |archive-date=27 January 2018 |url-status=dead }}

In 2018 the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties made a number of recommendations for reform of the act, including expanding coverage to Parliament, companies in which the government has majority control, and quasi-judicial agencies such as the Independent Police Complaints Authority; greater proactive release; limiting commercial and legal withholding grounds; and various measures to reduce political interference with the operation of the act. They recommended oversight by a specialist Open Government Commission, and criminal penalties for officials who subvert the law by destroying, falsifying or hiding official information.{{cite web |url=https://nzccl.org.nz/content/a-better-official-information-act |title=A Better Official Information Act |publisher=New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties |date=29 July 2018 |access-date=16 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181016130022/https://nzccl.org.nz/content/a-better-official-information-act |archive-date=16 October 2018 |url-status=live }}

In 2018 the government included a commitment to investigate whether to conduct a formal review of the act in its Open Government Partnership action plan.{{cite book |url=https://ogp.org.nz/assets/Publications/OGP-National-Action-Plan-2018-2020.pdf |title=National Action Plan 2018–2020 |publisher=New Zealand Government |page=30 |date=December 2018 |access-date=15 June 2020 |isbn=978-0-473-45996-3 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200502012307/https://ogp.org.nz/assets/Publications/OGP-National-Action-Plan-2018-2020.pdf |archive-date=2 May 2020 |url-status=live }} Originally this was planned as a "targeted engagement" consulting handpicked stakeholders,{{cite web |url=https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/09/18/242441/oia-review-back-on-table-for-govt |title=OIA review back on the table |publisher=Newsroom |author=Sam Sachdeva |date=19 September 2018 |access-date=15 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200614234553/https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/09/18/242441/oia-review-back-on-table-for-govt |archive-date=14 June 2020 |url-status=live }} but after a public outcry a public consultation was held in March 2019.{{cite web |url=https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/114669954/ministry-to-analyse-public-oia-submissions-and-report-back-to-justice-minister-andrew-little |title=Ministry to analyse public OIA submissions and report back to Justice Minister Andrew Little |author=Nikki Macdonald |publisher=Stuff |date=12 August 2019 |access-date=15 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191201094929/https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/114669954/ministry-to-analyse-public-oia-submissions-and-report-back-to-justice-minister-andrew-little |archive-date=1 December 2019 |url-status=live }} The decision on whether to review the act was then pushed back.{{cite web |url=https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/114411080/decision-on-official-information-review-stalled |title=Decision on official information review stalled |author=Andrea Vance |publisher=Stuff |date=22 July 2019 |access-date=15 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200614234556/https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/114411080/decision-on-official-information-review-stalled |archive-date=14 June 2020 |url-status=live }} In July 2020 Justice Minister Andrew Little announced that the act would be rewritten.{{cite web |url=https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/122045312/government-to-rewrite-official-information-act |title=Government to rewrite Official Information Act |author=Nikki Macdonald |publisher=Stuff |date=7 July 2020 |access-date=7 July 2020}} In January 2021 his replacement, Kris Faafoi, said that a review would be delayed until "later in this parliamentary term".{{cite web |url=https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/124076652/official-information-act-review-kicked-down-the-road |title=Official Information Act review kicked down the road |publisher=Stuff |author=Nikki Macdonald |date=29 January 2021 |access-date=11 February 2021}}

• Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987
• Right to privacy in New Zealand
• New Zealand Chief Ombudsman
• Coalition for Open Government

{{Notelist}}

{{Reflist}}

• {{cite web |url=https://canterbury.libguides.com/pols/oia_nz |title=Official Information Act 1982: A bibliography |last=Clemens |first=Dave |publisher=University of Canterbury |access-date=29 June 2020}}
• {{cite book |title=Access to Information, 2nd edition |last1=Taylor |first1=Graham |last2=Roth |first2=Paul |publisher=LexisNexis NZ |date=2011 |isbn=9781927313664}}
• {{cite thesis |title=Hobbling the News: A Study of Loss of Freedom of Information As a Presumptive Right for Public-interest Journalists in Aotearoa New Zealand |last=Treadwell |first=Greg |publisher=AUT |date=2018 |location=Auckland |type=PhD}}
• {{cite book |title=Free and Frank: Making the Official Information Act 1982 work better |last=White |first=Nicola |publisher=Institute of Policy Studies |location=Wellington |date=1987}}

• [http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1982/0156/latest/DLM64785.html?search=ta_act_O_ac%40ainf%40anif_an%40bn%40rn_25_a&p=1 Official Information Act 1982] on legislation.govt.nz
• [https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/official-information-act-requests/directory-of-official-information/ Directory of Official Information]
• [http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/ Office of the Ombudsmen]
• [http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/resources-and-publications/guides/official-information-legislation-guides Ombudsman's Practice Guidelines] for dealing with OIA requests.
• [https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/sites/default/files/2019-03/Danks%20general.pdf "Towards Open Government: General Report"] the first Report by the Committee on Official Information.
• [http://fyi.org.nz/ FYI] – create and browse requests for official information and local body information

{{Freedom of information}}

Category:Statutes of New Zealand

Category:Freedom of information legislation

Category:1982 in New Zealand law

Category:Constitution of New Zealand