Request for unredacted Memo issued in OIA 10175 June 2022
Richard Young made this Official Information request to New Zealand Transport Agency
The request was partially successful.
From: Richard Young
Dear New Zealand Transport Agency,
I note that in OIA 10175 in June 2022 that four sections of Attachment 1 were redacted under 9(2)(g)(i) of the OIA (Free and frank opinions).
On reading the remainder of the memo (dated 18/2/22) it seems unlikely that the subject matter of four redacted sections would qualify under the Ombudsman's interpretation of free and frank opinions. (https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/reso...).
Therefore - as a matter of urgency - please can you review that memo and, if the redactions are not consistent with the OIA, release the full Memo.
Yours faithfully,
Richard Young
From: Official Correspondence
New Zealand Transport Agency
Kia ora Richard
This email acknowledges your below request for information made under the
Official Information Act 1982.
Your request has been forwarded to the appropriate section of Waka Kotahi
NZ Transport Agency for response. They will contact you if they require
clarification of your request, more time to respond, or if your request
has been transferred to another organisation to respond to. Unless more
time is required, Waka Kotahi will send a response to you within 20
working days of receiving your request – in this instance on or before 13
April 2023.
Lastly, the information you have requested may contain the names and
contact details of our staff. Please let us know whether you require these
names and contact details. We may need to consult our staff before
deciding whether we can release this information, and this may take a bit
more time. If we do not hear from you we will assume that you do not
require staff names and contact details.
If you would like to discuss your request with Waka Kotahi, please contact
us by email at [1][NZTA request email].
Ngâ mihi
Ministerial Services
Te Waka Kôtuia | Engagement & Partnerships
Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency
[2]twitter | [3]youtube | [4]facebook
[5][IMG]
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Young <[FOI #22103 email]>
Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2023 2:43 pm
To: Official Correspondence <[email address]>
Subject: Official Information request - Request for unredacted Memo issued
in OIA 10175 June 2022
CAUTION: The sender of this email is from outside Waka Kotahi. Do not
click links, attachments, or reply unless you recognise the sender’s email
address and know the content is safe.
Dear New Zealand Transport Agency,
I note that in OIA 10175 in June 2022 that four sections of Attachment 1
were redacted under 9(2)(g)(i) of the OIA (Free and frank opinions).
On reading the remainder of the memo (dated 18/2/22) it seems unlikely
that the subject matter of four redacted sections would qualify under the
Ombudsman's interpretation of free and frank opinions.
([6]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...).
Therefore - as a matter of urgency - please can you review that memo and,
if the redactions are not consistent with the OIA, release the full Memo.
Yours faithfully,
Richard Young
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[7][FOI #22103 email]
Is [8][NZTA request email] the wrong address for Official
Information requests to New Zealand Transport Agency? If so, please
contact us using this form:
[9]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[10]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This message, together with any attachments, may contain information that
is classified and/or subject to legal privilege. Any classification
markings must be adhered to. If you are not the intended recipient, you
must not peruse, disclose, disseminate, copy or use the message in any
way. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email and then destroy the original message. This
communication may be accessed or retained by Waka Kotahi NZ Transport
Agency for information assurance purposes.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[NZTA request email]
2. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
3. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
4. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
5. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
6. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
7. mailto:[FOI #22103 email]
8. mailto:[NZTA request email]
9. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
10. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
hide quoted sections
From: Official Correspondence
New Zealand Transport Agency
image001.png
12K
Download
Attachment 1 AHB shared path safety assessment 18 February 2022 Redacted.pdf
1.1M
Download
View as HTML
OIA 12231 Richard Young response 16 March 2023.pdf
49K
Download
View as HTML
Kia ora Richard
Please find attached the response to your request of 14^th March 2023 for
information under the Official Information Act 1982.
Ngā mihi
Ministerial Services
Te Waka Kōtuia | Engagement & Partnerships
Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency
[1]twitter | [2]youtube | [3]facebook
[4][IMG]
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Young <[5][FOI #22103 email]>
Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2023 2:43 PM
To: Official Correspondence <[6][email address]>
Subject: Official Information request - Request for unredacted Memo issued
in OIA 10175 June 2022
CAUTION: The sender of this email is from outside Waka Kotahi. Do not
click links, attachments, or reply unless you recognise the sender’s email
address and know the content is safe.
Dear New Zealand Transport Agency,
I note that in OIA 10175 in June 2022 that four sections of Attachment 1
were redacted under 9(2)(g)(i) of the OIA (Free and frank opinions).
On reading the remainder of the memo (dated 18/2/22) it seems unlikely
that the subject matter of four redacted sections would qualify under the
Ombudsman's interpretation of free and frank opinions.
([7]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...).
Therefore - as a matter of urgency - please can you review that memo and,
if the redactions are not consistent with the OIA, release the full Memo.
Yours faithfully,
Richard Young
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[8][FOI #22103 email]
This message, together with any attachments, may contain information that
is classified and/or subject to legal privilege. Any classification
markings must be adhered to. If you are not the intended recipient, you
must not peruse, disclose, disseminate, copy or use the message in any
way. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email and then destroy the original message. This
communication may be accessed or retained by Waka Kotahi NZ Transport
Agency for information assurance purposes.
References
Visible links
1. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
2. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
3. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
4. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
5. mailto:[FOI #22103 email]
6. mailto:[email address]
7. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
8. mailto:[FOI #22103 email]
hide quoted sections
From: Richard Young
Dear Official Correspondence,
Many thanks for your prompt reply on this matter and your partial removing of material previously redacted under the 'free and frank' clause (s 9(2)(g)(i)) of the OIA. Reading the now unredacted parts it is clear that there was no justified reason under the original OIA to redact them.
In particular the wording 'This memo however doesn’t cover operational and reputational risk nor the legal or ITS requirement. Safety at the tie-ins at either end of the bridge are not covered in this memo.' is highly relevant to the original OIA request. It's redaction will inevitably be viewed as an attempt to protect your organisation's reputation by avoiding the disclosure of relevant but material that you may consider to be unhelpful.
The redaction of 'Herculean effort' whilst being amusing also clearly fails the s 9(2)(g)(i) threshold (as defined by the Ombudsman) as this clause is primarily used to protect the ability of future discussions not being constrained. In this case it appears to be an attempt to remove some words that may have embarrassed the writer or your organisation - neither of these are permissible reasons to retract under that section of the OIA.
This leaves the wording about the height of the barriers still redacted - a key safety matter requested under the original OIA. I therefore request that you review this redaction again to confirm that it does meet the Ombudsman's threshold for s 9(2)(g)(i) and is not another attempt to avoid the release of words that you'd prefer would have written differently, or not at all.
The final redaction '2' in 'Key Items excluded from the assessment' still remains. As the original OIA request related to your safety assessment I am struggling to see how the redaction of this sentence relating to what the safety assessment covered can fall under s 9(2)(g)(i) (free and frank) of the OIA so I am again (under urgency) requesting that it be reviewed and the redaction removed and the whole memo released in an unredacted form.
I thank you for you attention.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Young
From: Official Correspondence
New Zealand Transport Agency
Dear Richard
Thank you for your email below requesting that Waka Kotahi NZ Transport
Agency reconsider the remaining two redactions under section 9(2)(g)(i) of
the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act) in the ‘Auckland Harbour
Bridge shared path safety assessment (18 February 2022)’ document.
Waka Kotahi position on this matter remains that this information should
continue to be withheld to maintain the effective conduct of public
affairs through the free and frank expression of opinions. Under section
28 of the Act, you have the right to ask the Ombudsman to review Waka
Kotahi decision to withhold the information. The contact details for the
Ombudsman can be located at [1]www.ombudsman.parliament.nz.
Ngā mihi
Ministerial Services
Te Waka Kōtuia | Engagement & Partnerships
Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency
[2]twitter | [3]youtube | [4]facebook
[5][IMG]
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Young <[6][FOI #22103 email]>
Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2023 10:26 am
To: Official Correspondence <[7][email address]>
Subject: Re: OIA-12231 RESPONSE
CAUTION: The sender of this email is from outside Waka Kotahi. Do not
click links, attachments, or reply unless you recognise the sender’s email
address and know the content is safe.
Dear Official Correspondence,
Many thanks for your prompt reply on this matter and your partial removing
of material previously redacted under the 'free and frank' clause (s
9(2)(g)(i)) of the OIA. Reading the now unredacted parts it is clear that
there was no justified reason under the original OIA to redact them.
In particular the wording 'This memo however doesn’t cover operational and
reputational risk nor the legal or ITS requirement. Safety at the tie-ins
at either end of the bridge are not covered in this memo.' is highly
relevant to the original OIA request. It's redaction will inevitably be
viewed as an attempt to protect your organisation's reputation by avoiding
the disclosure of relevant but material that you may consider to be
unhelpful.
The redaction of 'Herculean effort' whilst being amusing also clearly
fails the s 9(2)(g)(i) threshold (as defined by the Ombudsman) as this
clause is primarily used to protect the ability of future discussions not
being constrained. In this case it appears to be an attempt to remove
some words that may have embarrassed the writer or your organisation -
neither of these are permissible reasons to retract under that section of
the OIA.
This leaves the wording about the height of the barriers still redacted -
a key safety matter requested under the original OIA. I therefore
request that you review this redaction again to confirm that it does meet
the Ombudsman's threshold for s 9(2)(g)(i) and is not another attempt to
avoid the release of words that you'd prefer would have written
differently, or not at all.
The final redaction '2' in 'Key Items excluded from the assessment' still
remains. As the original OIA request related to your safety assessment I
am struggling to see how the redaction of this sentence relating to what
the safety assessment covered can fall under s 9(2)(g)(i) (free and frank)
of the OIA so I am again (under urgency) requesting that it be reviewed
and the redaction removed and the whole memo released in an unredacted
form.
I thank you for you attention.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Young
-----Original Message-----
Kia ora Richard
Please find attached the response to your request of 14^th March 2023 for
information under the Official Information Act 1982.
Ngā mihi
Ministerial Services
Te Waka Kōtuia | Engagement & Partnerships Waka Kotahi NZ Transport
Agency
[1]twitter | [2]youtube | [3]facebook
[4][IMG]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[8][FOI #22103 email]
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[9]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This message, together with any attachments, may contain information that
is classified and/or subject to legal privilege. Any classification
markings must be adhered to. If you are not the intended recipient, you
must not peruse, disclose, disseminate, copy or use the message in any
way. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email and then destroy the original message. This
communication may be accessed or retained by Waka Kotahi NZ Transport
Agency for information assurance purposes.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/
2. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
3. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
4. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
5. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
6. mailto:[FOI #22103 email]
7. mailto:[email address]
8. mailto:[FOI #22103 email]
9. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
hide quoted sections
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid requests for Official Information (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this request
Richard Young left an annotation ()
Complaint to Ombudsman lodged 17/3/22 requesting last two redacted clauses to be released. The words they agreed to 'un-redact' showed that they were seeking to protect their 'reputation' and also avoid ridicule by trying to hide the use of the word 'Herculean' from disclosure.
Link to this