Complaint lodged with the Ombudsman

--------------
Office of the Ombudsman
By email

17/10/2014

Dear Sir
Re: Complaint ref: 389555
1. Status of Requests

1.1. Further to my email dated 15 October, I advise that Police have responded to one of my two requests. Their reply is posted at https://www.fyi.org.nz/request/1932-sear...

1.2. No response has been received to my request “Helicopter Use,” which remains substantially overdue.

1.3. I am complaining to you about the response referred to above. The basis for the complaint is set out below.

2. Redaction of names from documents

2.1. Individual names were redacted from some materials supplied under Section 9(2)(a)

2.2. Section 9(2)(a) of the OIA provides good reason for withholding information about natural persons if, and only if, the withholding of the information is necessary to:

“[p]rotect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons."

2.3. I note that in your Opinion dated 14 December 2012, you state:

“Ombudsmen have taken the view that, while the disclosure … does involve the release of details about identifiable individuals, this does not constitute a significant infringement of their privacy interests for the purposes of the OIA.

I consider that as a general principle the public have the right to know the provenance of public policy decisions. This will generally include the content of the submission and the identity of those who elected to contribute.”

2.4. I am therefore appealing the decision to redact the names of individuals who made submission, on the following basis:

a) Withholding the identify of person does not constitute a significant infringement of their privacy interests for the purposes of the OIA

b) The public have a right to know the provenance of public policy decisions, including the content of submissions and identify of those who elected to contribute.

3. Partial refusal under 18(f)

3.1. Parts of the request were refused under 18(f).

3.2. I note that in your publication ISSN 1173-5376 you state:

Section 18(f) is primarily focussed on the administrative task of identifying what information falls within the scope of a particular request and assembling it for consideration as to release.
In assessing whether section 18(f) applies in a particular case, the following factors have been identified as being relevant:

(i) the amount of work involved in determining what information falls within the scope of the request;

(ii) the difficulty involved in locating, researching or collating the information;

(iii) the amount of documentation to be looked at;

(iv) the work time involved;

(v) the nature of the resources and the personnel available to process requests for information;
and

(vi) the effect on other operations of the diversion of resources to meet the request.

3.3. I also note various scholarly articles that state that 18(f) refusals should only be used as a last resort and departments and agencies should take all reasonable measures to comply with the Act invoking relying on 18(f)

3.4. The response from Police appears to rely on an email search of Inspector Green’s email records. Given a specific request for comment via email was made to other Police staff by Inspector Green, it is a reasonable assumption that information relevant to the requested could be obtained from the wider Police email system, specifically from the email records of the limited number of recipients of his request.

3.5. Presumably the Police email system complies with the Public Records Act 2005, and documents in it are stored within “an accessible form so as to be able to be used for subsequent reference. [Public Records Act 2005 17 (2)]” The amount of time required to collate the material should therefore be insignificant in the context of the Official Information Act.

3.6. The released material appears to be almost exclusively relating to third-party comments on the review referenced in the request. In effect, this means that little to no information relating to submissions made by Police has been released.

3.7. It is inconceivable that no electronic records relating to the material in question were generated by the approximately 120 Police staff involved in search and rescue matters part-time, two full-time staff at Police National Headquarters, and one full-time equivalent in at least seven Police districts. I therefore believe that Police have failed to substantially address the request in the spirit of the Act. I note that in one email released, Inspector Green encouraged responses to his draft document by email.

4. Destruction of meeting notes

4.1. I ask you to investigate the destruction of meeting records referenced in the Police response to the request. I submit that these consultation records were “Public Records” under the Public Records Act 2005, and destruction of the records constitutes an offence under the Public Records Act.

4.2. 3.1 may relate to compliance with the Official Information Act, or it may fall within the review of administrative decisions remit of the Independent Police Conduct Authority. I seek your advice on how to best progress this issue.

Your assistance with this matter would be appreciated.