25 October 2019
Chris Johnston
By ema
il: [FYI request #11356 email]
Dear Chris
Official information request for information mentioning scientists Connolly,
Connolly, and Monckton
I refer to your request for information under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act)
dated 2 October 2019:
“Please provide any records (including but not limited to internal/external:
documents, emails, notes, minutes, text messages, or social media messages)
mentioning scientists Dr Ronan Connolly and/or Michael Connolly and/or
Christopher Monckton.”
Due to the substantial amount of work that would be required to research and collate the
information you have requested, we are refusing your request under section 18(f) of the
Act on the basis that the requested information cannot be made available without
substantial collation and research. A search of the University’s email system alone for
“Ronan Connolly”, “Michael Connolly”, and “Christopher Monckton” discovered a total of
6,254 email threads. While not all of these email threads may be relevant to your request,
the University would be required to search through all 6,254 to identify those which are
relevant. The University has no way of easily searching for other records to identify those
that mention “Ronan Connolly”, “Michael Connolly”, and “Christopher Monckton”.
The University considered whether charging or extending the timeframe for responding
to your request would help, as required by section 18A of the Act, and also whether
consulting with you would help, as required by section 18B of the Act. However, neither
of these things would help given that the University has no way of easily searching
records to identify those that mention “Ronan Connolly”, “Michael Connolly”, and
“Christopher Monckton”.
In addition, the University believes that any records relevant to your request could also be
withheld under sections 9(2)(g)(i) of the Act (on the basis that withholding is necessary to
maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the free and frank expression of
opinions by or between (University staff) in the course of their duty) and/or section
9(2)(a) of the Act (on the basis that withholding is necessary to protect individual
privacy).
In relation to section 9(2)(g)(i) of the Act, I note in particular that the Education Act 1989
sets out the unique role of a university to be critic and conscience of society and also
enshrines the statutory protection of academic freedom. Among other things, academic
freedom includes “the freedom of academic staff and students, within the law, to question
and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state controversial or
unpopular opinions”.
You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of this
decision. Information about how to make a complaint is available at
www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or freephone 0800 802 602.
If you wish to discuss this decision with us, please feel free to contact me at
[VUW request email]. I am able to provide further assistance should you be willing to
change or refine your request.
Yours sincerely
Georgia Tawharu
Adviser, Information Access and Copyright