10 December 2010
Margaret Thompson

Law Commission
PO Box 2590
Wellington 6140
Dear Margaret

Official Information Legislation Review
Meridian Energy (“Meridian”) welcomes the opportunity to make submissions to the Law
Commission’s (“Commission”) Official Information Legislation Review (“Review”).

Meridian has focussed on the following key areas in our submission. Our detailed analysis, in
response to particular discussion questions, is set out in Appendix A.

Scope of OIA
Meridian considers that there are strong reasons for excluding State Owned Enterprises
(SOEs) from the scope of the OIA because:
1.  inclusion of SOEs is inconsistent with the OIA’s purpose;
2.  SOEs are properly scrutinised under other legislation;
3.  Meridian competes in the same market as non SOEs and as such is materially
unfairly disadvantaged.

If SOEs remain within the scope of the OIA, Meridian submits that it is important to the
commercial success of entities like Meridian, who operate in highly competitive environments
with direct competitors who are not SOEs, that the matters summarised in points 2 and 3
below are provided for in this Review.

Interpretation of commercial withholding grounds
Meridian supports the extension and clarification of the commercial withholding grounds. On
this basis, we also support greater use of case notes as precedent. However, we note that
there is potential for SOEs like Meridian to be materially disadvantaged by the operation of the
OIA if:
1.  the commercial withholding grounds are narrowly interpreted or are given
insufficient weight (when balanced against the public interest); and/or
2.  a body of precedent case notes is developed which fails to make a distinction
between SOEs that operate in a competitive market environment and other
agencies that do not.
Meridian Energy Limited
Level 1, 33 Customhouse Quay
Phone +64-4 381 1200

PO Box 10-840
Fax +64-4 381 1272

Wellington 6143, New Zealand
www.meridianenergy.co.nz

Purpose
Meridian is particularly concerned that certain individuals and groups are using the OIA as a
means of creating nuisance rather than genuinely seeking access to information. We have
made detailed submissions regarding vexatious requests/requesters, purpose of requests and
release of information during court processes.
Meridian considers that these changes are necessary in order ensure the OIA operates in
furtherance of the public interest and not as a mechanism for hindering the legitimate
business activities of agencies.

Please call Vanessa Simons on (04) 3827567 if you wish to discuss this submission further.

Yours sincerely,

Jason Stein

General Counsel

DDI 04
3811257
Fax
04 381 1287
Mobile 021-761225
Email [email address]

Attachment: Appendix A: Meridian’s response to the discussion questions.
704430_1

Page 2 of 30

Appendix A: Meridian’s response to the discussion questions

Question
Response
1
Q1 Do you agree that the
Yes. Meridian agrees that the schedules in the OIA and LOGOIMA should list each agency they cover.
schedules to each Act (OIA
and LGOIMA) should list
every agency that they cover?

2
Do you agree that the
Yes. Meridian supports this recommendation.
schedules to the OIA and
LGOIMA should be examined
to eliminate anomalies and
ensure that all relevant bodies
are included?

3
Do you agree that SOEs and
No. Meridian considers that there are strong reasons for excluding SOE’s from the scope of the OIA
other crown entity companies
because:
should remain within the
  inclusion of SOEs is inconsistent with the OIA’s purpose.
scope of the OIA?

  information relevant to proper scrutiny of SOsE is available under other legislation.

  Meridian competes in the same market as non SOEs and is materially disadvantaged because:

o  OIA compliance imposes additional costs and requires allocation of resources that non
Meridian Energy Limited
Level 1, 33 Customhouse Quay
Phone +64-4 381 1200

PO Box 10-840
Fax +64-4 381 1272

Wellington 6143, New Zealand
www.meridianenergy.co.nz

SOEs do not incur; and

o  limited withholding grounds (or the limited interpretation of them) on a commercial basis
undermines Meridian’s ability to compete in the market.

We consider each of these in more detail below.

Inclusion of SOEs is inconsistent with the OIA’s purpose.

Meridian notes that the purpose of the OIA is to make official information available in order to enable
effective participation in the making and administration of laws and policies and to promote the
accountability of Ministers of the Crown and officials.
We submit that Meridian’s inclusion does not enable effective participation in the making or administration
of laws. SOEs have no responsibilities in this regard.

Information relevant to proper scrutiny of an SOE is available under other legislation.

Meridian notes that the Commission’s view that inclusion of SOEs provides an important accountability
mechanism not covered by other reporting obligations. We disagree. For local and central government
the public quite rightly ought to be able to gain assurance that public spending decisions are transparent
and appropriate. However, like other companies, SOEs are revenue generating entities. As such, the
public interest in obtaining information from SOEs can appropriately be limited to disclosures already
provided for under various legislation governing reporting and compliance.

Specifically, the transparency and accountability of Meridian is met by a number of existing processes,
including publishing a SCI and Audited Annual Report, quarterly and half yearly reports, and the
requirement to appear at Select Committee. There is also the ‘no surprises policy’ in place with
shareholding Ministers.   In addition, Meridian now also falls under the NZX disclosure regime following
its launch of listed securities.

We submit that this legislative framework is appropriate to Meridian’s purpose and provides sufficient
disclosure of information in the public interest. We submit that no further public interest purpose is served
by inclusion of Meridian under the OIA, and as described below, such inclusion unfairly disadvantages
Meridian in comparison to its non SOE competitors.

704430_1

Page 4 of 30

Meridian and other SOEs who compete in the same market as non SOEs are materially unfairly
disadvantaged.

Meridian notes that the issues identified in this category may be addressed by expansion and clarification
of the commercial withholding grounds and a more purposive interpretation of the OIA. We have made
submissions accordingly, in response to relevant questions below. If SOEs remain within the scope of
the OIA, we submit that it is important to the commercial success of entities like Meridian operating in
highly competitive environments with direct competitors who are not SOEs, that these matters are
provided for in the Review.

OIA compliance imposes additional costs and allocation of resources that non SOEs do not incur.
Meridian notes the Commission’s conclusion that SOEs face additional costs under the Act not borne by
their private sector competitors, but submits that it has not given sufficient regard to the additional costs
that are imposed on SOEs.
In our observation, the cost in the administrative overlay from incessant OIA requests can be substantial,
and can not only be measured in terms of dollars and hours, but also the business impact resulting from
tying up resource which might otherwise be used to more effectively manage Meridian’s business
activity. If SOEs are to continue to be subject to the OIA, we have made submissions below requesting
amendments that will better provide for us to refuse requests that have the purpose or the effect of
unfairly disadvantaging Meridian.

Limited withholding grounds (or the limited interpretation of them) on a commercial basis undermines
Meridian’s ability to compete in the market.

Release of information under the OIA where the withholding grounds do not apply or are applied in a
limited fashion (for example the application of precedent appropriate only to accountability of local and
central government) result in Meridian being disadvantaged for example by:

  discouraging third parties entering agreements with Meridian, providing information to Meridian or
giving evidence in support of a Meridian project , due to concerns that such information will
become publicly available;

  undermining Meridian’s negotiation position with third parties by revealing commercially sensitive
information;
704430_1

Page 5 of 30

 using the OIA as a method of creating nuisance to hinder the RMA process necessary for
establishment of Meridian’s infrastructure projects. This occurs by tying up internal resources who
are involved in the consenting process with detailed and complex requests for information, using
Meridian as a collator of information already made public during the RMA process, and causing
the release of information declined by the relevant authority.
4
Do you agree that council

controlled organisations
should remain within the
scope of the LGOIMA?

5
Do you agree that the

Parliamentary Counsel Office
should be brought within
the scope of the OIA?

6
Do you agree that the OIA

should specify what
information relating to the
operation of the Courts is
covered by the Act?

7
Should any further categories

of information be expressly
excluded from the OIA and the
LGOIMA?
8
Do you agree that the OIA and
the LGOIMA should continue
704430_1

Page 6 of 30

to be based on
a case-by-case model?

9
Do you agree that more clarity  We agree that enhanced guidance has the potential to improve clarity and certainty, however the extent
and certainty about the official
to which this is successful will depend on the quality of analysis and case notes. This is discussed in
information withholding
more detail at Q11 below.
grounds can be gained
through enhanced guidance
rather than through
prescriptive rules, redrafting
the grounds or prescribing
what information should be
released in regulations?

10
Do you agree there should be
Yes.
a compilation, analysis of, and
commentary on the casenotes
of the Ombudsmen?

11
Do you agree there should be
While we consider that the use of precedents has the potential to provide certainty, we are also
greater access to, and
concerned that this approach could lead to short cuts in analysis.
reliance on, the casenotes as
precedents?
In our experience there has been a tendency for the Office of the Ombudsmen to apply findings in earlier
cases to Meridian, without undertaking sufficient analysis to properly distinguish Meridian’s case on the

facts. We are particularly concerned that proper account is taken of the commercial nature of Meridian
as an SOE enterprise and the extent to which Meridian can be commercially disadvantaged in the market
as a result of disclosures in the market, vis a vis its non SOE competitors. Meridian therefore supports
the use of precedents only in conjunction with a more robust approach to applying the commercial
withholding terms and recognition by the Office of the Ombudsmen that findings made in relation to
government departments do not, as a matter of course, apply equally to SOEs.
704430_1

Page 7 of 30

12
Do you agree there should be
Yes.
a reformulation of the
guidelines with greater use of
case examples?

13
Do you agree there should be
Yes.
a dedicated and accessible
official information website?

14
Do you agree that the “good

government” withholding
grounds should be redrafted?

15
What are your views on the

proposed reformulated
provisions relating to the
“good government” grounds?

16
Do you think the commercial
No. Consistent with the Law Commission’s paper, we consider that commercial activities may
withholding ground should
encompass situations that do not necessarily relate to profit making. Meridian supports the view that
continue to be confined to
confining to profit making is too narrow.
situations where the purpose
is to make a profit?

17
If you favour a broader
Yes. As discussed above, Meridian submits that if SOEs are to remain within the scope of the OIA, clear
interpretation, should there be
guidance must be provided to the Office of the Ombudsmen on taking a broad view when assessing
a statutory amendment to
whether commercial withholding grounds apply. In particular the Ombudsmen should have regard to the
704430_1

Page 8 of 30

clarify when the commercial
impact release of the information would have on all relevant parties (not just the agency) and whether the
withholding ground applies?
release would disadvantage the agency (specifically SOEs) in relation to its direct competitors. We
submit that any such disadvantage be sufficient grounds to withhold the information, subject to the

overriding public interest test. Further we submit that in balancing the commercial disadvantage against
the public interest benefits, weight should be given to the commercial issues such that the information is
only released where there is a very strong and clear public interest.
18
Do you think the trade secrets
Yes. We are particularly supportive of an amendment to clarify that the obligation of confidence ground
and confidentiality withholding
includes information created by the agency.
grounds should be amended
for clarification?
In addition, we are aware of instances where the OIA is being used as a method for obtaining data either
on its own (ie raw data) or following compilation and collation by the agency in such a way as to attract

copyright, which would otherwise only be available via license from the agency or which would be
retained as a commercially valuable trade secret.
In the electricity industry, the development of smart meter technology will enable Meridian and other
electricity retailers to gather and collate data regarding consumers’ use of electricity. This data will
obviously have commercial benefit to Meridian and will be treated as confidential/trade secret material.
We will be significantly disadvantaged if a third party is then able to obtain that data, particularly in its
collated form, and reuse it in competition with Meridian.
While s.9(2)(k) may go some way to offering grounds to withhold information of this nature, we consider
that it is appropriate for trade secrets and confidentiality to be expressly dealt with.
19
Do you agree that the official
Yes, provided that, as discussed above, release of that information is clearly for a proper purpose
information legislation should
regarding the public interest and is not being used by a third party as a back door mechanism for
continue to apply to
obtaining valuable IP that would otherwise have to be paid for via a license or developed independently.
information in which
intellectual property is held by
a third party?

20
Do you have any comment on

the application of the OIA to
research work, particularly
that commissioned by third
704430_1

Page 9 of 30

parties?

21
Do you think the public
Yes, we are supportive of the factors listed in 5.42 of the Law Commission’s paper. We consider they
interest factors relevant to
could usefully be added to both the legislation and the guidelines (in an expanded form).
disclosure of commercial
information should be included
in guidelines or in the
legislation?

22
Do you experience any other
We have experienced problems regarding release of third party confidential information. We submit that
problems with the commercial
firmer guidance should be provided to the Office of the Ombudsmen to clarify that consideration of the
withholding grounds?
wider commercial implications and potential for commercial disadvantage for all parties involved in the
disclosure should take place.

For example, Meridian agreed lower than market rates with a third party service provider, which were
required to be disclosed under the OIA. The Ombudsman “saw no harm” in the release, yet that third
party was subsequently put at a disadvantage in negotiating its rates with other parties who then also
wanted to obtain the lower rate offered to Meridian.

23
Which option do you support

for improving the privacy
withholding ground:

Option 1 – guidance only, or;
Option 2 – an “unreasonable
disclosure of information”
amendment while
retaining the public interest
704430_1

Page 10 of 30

balancing test, or;
Option 3 – an amendment to
align with principle 11 of the
Privacy Act 1993
while retaining the public
interest test, or;
Option 4 – any other
solutions?

24
Do you think there should be

amendments to the Acts in
relation to the privacy
interests of:
(a) deceased persons?
(b) children?

25
Do you have any views on

public sector agencies using
the OIA to gather
personal information about
individuals?

26
Do you agree that no

withholding grounds should be
moved between the
conclusive and non-conclusive
withholding provisions in
either the OIA or LGOIMA?
704430_1

Page 11 of 30

27
Do you think there should be

new withholding grounds to
cover:
(a) harassment;
(b) the protection of cultural
values;
(c) anything else?

28
Do you agree that the “will
Yes.
soon be publicly available”
ground should be amended as
proposed?

29
Do you agree that there
Yes. As a developer of infrastructure Meridian is a regular participant in the Resource Management Act
should be a new non-
consenting process. In our experience, opponents of such developments opt to use the OIA as a
conclusive withholding ground
mechanism for hindering and disadvantaging Meridian during that process. We submit that it is not in the
for information supplied in the
public interest for the OIA to be used in this manner.
course of an investigation?
Specifically, OIA requests that relate to RMA consenting process generally mean:

  that there is duplication in the provision of information since the information requested will
normally form part of the public record once a resource consent application is lodged (there is also
additional expense and time incurred compiling such information);
  that Meridian is at a competitive disadvantage with other private developers as the information is
released early to the market and not at a time of Meridian’s choosing;
  that occasionally OIA requests relate to the release of information that has already been declined
by another jurisdiction (i.e. Environment Court) and seek to re-litigate the same matter via
704430_1

Page 12 of 30

  “fishing expeditions” to bolster a RMA challenge.
Accordingly, in addition to supporting this amendment, we also submit that it should be extended so that
information withheld during the relevant proceeding can be withheld until that proceeding has been
completed. We consider this should include the RMA consenting process and any other court
proceedings where the agency is a participant.
We note with reference to Q30 that “maintenance of the law” ground is not sufficiently wide to provide for
this issue.
30
Do you have any comments

on, or suggestions about, the
“maintenance of law”

conclusive withholding

ground?

31
Do you agree that the Acts

should not include a codified
list of public interest factors?

If you disagree, what public
interest factors do you
suggest should be included?

32
Can you suggest any statutory
amendment which would
clarify what “public interest”
means and how it should be
applied?

704430_1

Page 13 of 30

33
Do you think the public
Yes.
interest test should be
contained in a distinct and
separate provision?

34
Do you think the Acts should
No – the need to provide an explanation will naturally arise from explaining to the requester or during an
include a requirement for
Ombudsman investigation, the reasons for withholding information.
agencies to confirm they have
considered the public interest
when withholding information
and also indicate what public
interest grounds they
considered?

35
Do you agree that the phrase
Yes
“due particularity” should be
redrafted in more
detail to make it clearer?

36
Do you agree that agencies
No
should be required to consult
with requesters in the
case of requests for large
amounts of information?

37
Do you agree the Acts should
Yes
clarify that the 20 working day
limit for requests
delayed by lack of particularity
704430_1

Page 14 of 30

should start when the request
has been accepted?

38
Do you agree that substantial

time spent in “review” and
“assessment” of material
should be taken into account
in assessing whether material
can be released, and that the
Acts should be amended to
make that clear?

39
Do you agree that

“substantial” should be
defined with reference to the
size
and resources of the agency
considering the request?

40
Do you have any other ideas

about reasonable ways to deal
with requests that require a
substantial amount of time to
process?

41
Do you agree it should be
Yes
clarified that the past conduct
of a requester can
be taken into account in
704430_1

Page 15 of 30

assessing whether a request
is vexatious?

42
Do you agree that the term
We support a clearer definition of “vexatious” but submit that making reference to “bad faith” is simply
“vexatious” should be defined
adding another legal term of art rather than providing clarity.
in the Acts to include
the element of bad faith?

43
Do you agree that an agency
Yes
should be able to decline a
request for information if the
same or substantially the
same information has been
provided, or refused, to that
requester in the past?

44
Do you think that provision
Yes. In our experience individuals or groups of individuals are using the OIA to prevent or hinder
should be made for an agency  Meridian taking a legitimate course of action or business decision. These most often relate to groups or
to declare a requester
individuals who oppose our generation projects. In general, these groups or individuals seek to hinder
“vexatious”? If so, how should
the project by inundating Meridian with requests for the same or similar information. As discussed further
such a system operate?
below, we consider that the agency should be given the opportunity to demonstrate that an individual or
group is seeking to use the OIA for an improper purpose by providing relevant evidence and giving the
Office of the Ombudsmen broad powers to review that evidence and draw conclusions regarding whether
the requests/requesters are seeking information for matters genuinely within the public interest or are
using it inappropriately in a way that diverts resource from proper process. In our experience, the true
intent of the requests/requesters will be obvious from the volume and nature of the requests.
45
Do you agree that, as at
No. We consider that the purpose for which information is required is an important consideration.  We
present, requesters should not  submit that purpose is relevant to an individual’s right to information and consider that purposes that do
be required to state the
not support the public interest or the purpose of the Act should warrant refusal of the request,
purpose for which they are
notwithstanding the requester or request may not be “vexatious”. For example, where the primary
requesting official information
purpose of the request/requester is to obtain information in order to prevent or hinder the agency taking a
nor to provide their real
704430_1

Page 16 of 30

name?
legitimate course of action or business decision or otherwise as a means of protest against the agency.

We also consider that the real name of requesters should be provided. This will promote the use of the
OIA by individuals acting genuinely out of the public interest and deter those with ulterior motives who
would be more likely to hide behind false identities.
46
Do you agree the Acts should

state that requests can be oral
or in writing, and that the
requests do not need to refer
to the relevant official
information legislation?

47
Do you agree that more

accessible guidance should
be available for requesters?

48
Do you agree the 20 working

day time limit should be
retained for making a
decision?

49
Do you agree that there

should be express provision
that the information must be
released as soon as
reasonably practicable after a
decision to release is made?

50
Do you agree that, as at
Yes. This will ensure the requester knows their request is being considered. If a requester sends a
present, there should be no
request via email to a person within Meridian who has left the organisation, there is no mechanism for
statutory requirement to
alerting the requester that their request is not being processed. If a requester expected a prompt
704430_1

Page 17 of 30

acknowledge receipt of an
acknowledgement of receipt, and the acknowledgement was not forthcoming, they would be in a position
official information request but
to more quickly investigate whether their request was being processed.
this should be encouraged as
best practice?

51
Do you agree that ‘complexity

of the material being sought’
should be a ground for
extending the response time
limit?

52
Do you agree there is no need
for an express power to
extend the response time limit
by agreement?

53
Do you agree the maximum

extension time should
continue to be flexible without
a specific time limit set out in
statute?

54
Do you agree that handling

urgent requests should
continue to be dealt with by
Ombudsmen guidelines and
there is no need for further
statutory provision?

55
Do you agree there should be

clearer guidelines about
consultation with ministerial
704430_1

Page 18 of 30

offices?

56
Do you agree there should not Yes.
be any mandatory
requirement to consult with
third parties?

57
Do you agree there should be
No. We consider this is a matter than can be appropriately handled as between the agency and the third
a requirement to give prior
party without the need for a statutory requirement.
notice of release where there
are significant third party
interests at stake?

58
How long do you think the

notice to third parties should
be?

59
Do you agree there should be
Yes
provision in the legislation to
allow for partial transfers?

60
Do you agree there is no need
for further statutory provisions
about transfer to ministers?

61
Do you have any other

comment about the transfer of
requests to ministers?
704430_1

Page 19 of 30

62
Do you think that whether

information is released in
electronic form should
continue to depend on the
preference of the requester?

63
Do you think the Acts should

make specific provision for
metadata, information in
backup systems and
information inaccessible
without specialist expertise?

64
Should hard copy costs ever

be recoverable if requesters
select hard copy over
electronic supply of the
information?

65
Do you think that the official
No. We submit this would place an unnecessary and unreasonable burden on agencies to essentially
information legislation needs
provide legal advice to requesters regarding their legal obligations with respect to information obtained.
to make any further provision
for agencies to place
conditions on the re-use of
information, or are the current
provisions sufficient?

66
Do you agree there should be

regulations laying down a
clear charging framework for
704430_1

Page 20 of 30

both the OIA and the
LGOIMA?

67
Do you have any comment as

to what the framework should
be and who should
be responsible for
recommending it?

68
Do you agree that the
Yes. Meridian agrees that the charging regime should apply to political party requests for official
charging regime should also
information. Meridian submits that charging for information provides incentives to ensure that the
apply to political party
information sought is targeted and useful.
requests for official

information?

69
Do you agree that both the
Yes.
OIA and LGOIMA should set
out the full procedures
followed by the Ombudsmen
in reviewing complaints?

70
Do you think the Acts provide

sufficiently at present for
failure by agencies
to respond appropriately to
urgent requests?

71
Do you agree with the existing
situation where a person
704430_1

Page 21 of 30

affected by the release of their
information under the OIA or
the LGOIMA cannot complain
to the Ombudsman?

72
Do you agree there should be
No. We submit that a change of this nature would place an unreasonable burden on the agency. The
grounds to complain to the
agency would not only be exposed to investigation by the Ombudsmen due to complaint by the requester
Ombudsmen if sufficient
for refusal to provide information, but also due to complaint by a third party for releasing that information.
notice of release is not given
As discussed above, in our view the better approach is to protect third parties’ interests by ensuring the
to third parties when their
withholding grounds are adequately formulated to ensure that agencies are able to withhold information
interests are at stake?
subject to confidentiality or which would commercially prejudice the third party.

73
Do you agree that a transfer

complaint ground should be
added to the OIA
and the LGOIMA?

74
Do you think there should be

any changes to the processes
the Ombudsmen’s follows in
investigating complaints?

75
Do you agree that the

Ombudsmen should be given
a final power of decision
when determining an official
information request?

76
Do you agree that the veto

power exercisable by Order in
704430_1

Page 22 of 30

Council through the Cabinet in
the OIA should be removed?

77
Do you agree that the veto

power exercisable by a local
authority in the LGOIMA
should be removed?

78
If you believe the veto power

should be retained for the OIA
and LGOIMA,
do you have any comment or
suggestions about its
operation?

79
Do you agree that judicial

review is an appropriate
safeguard in relation to the
Ombudsmen’s
recommendations and there is
no need to introduce a
statutory
right of appeal to the Court?

80
Do you agree that the public

duty to comply with an
Ombudsman’s decision
should be enforceable by the
Solicitor-General?
704430_1

Page 23 of 30

81
Do you agree that the

complaints process for Part 3
and 4 official information
should be aligned with the
complaints process under Part
2?

82
Do you agree that, rather than

financial or penal sanctions,
the Ombudsmen
should have express statutory
power to publicly draw
attention to the conduct
of an agency?

83
Should there be any further

enforcement powers, such as
exist in the United Kingdom?

84
Q84 Do you agree that the

OIA should require each
agency to publish on its
website the information
currently specified in section
20 of the OIA?

85
Do you think there should be

any further mandatory
704430_1

Page 24 of 30

categories of information
subject to a proactive
disclosure requirement in the
OIA or LGOIMA?

86
Do you agree that the OIA and
LGOIMA should require
agencies to take all
reasonably practicable steps
to proactively release official
information?

87
Should such a requirement

apply to all central and local
agencies covered by the OI
legislation?

88
What contingent provision

should the legislation make in
case the “reasonably
practicable steps” provision
proves inadequate? For
example, should there be a
statutory review or regulation
making powers relating to
proactive release of
information?

89
Do you think agencies should

be required to have explicit
704430_1

Page 25 of 30

publication schemes for the
information they hold, as in
other jurisdictions?
90
Do you agree that disclosure

logs should not be
mandatory?

91
Do you agree that section 48

of the OIA and section 41 of
the LGOIMA which
protect agencies from court
proceedings should not apply
to proactive release?

92
Do you agree that the OIA and
the LGOIMA should expressly
include a function of providing
advice and guidance to
agencies and requesters?

93
Do you agree that the OIA and
LGOIMA should include a
function of promoting
awareness and understanding
and encouraging education
and training?

94
Do you agree that an

oversight agency should be
704430_1

Page 26 of 30

required to monitor the
operation of the OIA and LGO
IMA, collect statistics on use,
and report findings to
Parliament annually?
95
Do you agree that agencies

should be required to submit
statistics relating
to official information requests
to the oversight body so as to
facilitate this
monitoring function?

96
Do you agree that an explicit

audit function does not need
to be included in the OIA or
the LGOIMA?

97
Do you agree that the OIA and
LGOIMA should enact an
oversight function
which includes monitoring the
operation of the Acts, a policy
function, a review
function, and a promotion
function?

98
Do you agree that the

704430_1

Page 27 of 30

Ombudsmen should continue
to receive and investigate
complaints under the OIA and
the LGOIMA?

99
Do you agree that the

Ombudsmen should be
responsible for the provision
of general guidance and
advice?

100  What agency should be

responsible for promoting
awareness and understanding
of the OIA and the LGO IMA
and arranging for programmes
of education and training for
agencies subject to the Acts?

101  What agency should be

responsible for administrative
oversight of the OIA
and the LGOIMA? What
should be included in the
oversight functions?
102  Do you think an Information

Commissioner Office should
be established in New
Zealand? If so, what should its
functions be?
704430_1

Page 28 of 30

103  If you think an Information

Commissioner Office should
be established, should it be
standalone or part of another
agency?

104  Do you agree that the

LGOIMA should be aligned
with the OIA in terms of who
can make requests and the
purpose of the legislation?

105  Is the difference between the

OIA and LGOIMA about the
status of information
held by contractors justified?
Which version is to be
preferred?

106  Do you agree that the official

information legislation should
be redrafted and re-enacted?

107  Do you agree that the OIA and  No. Meridian considers that there are no strong reasons for the OIA and LGOIMA to remain as separate
the LGOIMA should remain as  Acts. Meridian therefore submits that the two Acts should be combined.
separate Acts?

704430_1

Page 29 of 30

108 Do you have any comment on

the interaction between the
PRA and the OI legislation?
Are any statutory
amendments required in your
view?

704430_1

Page 30 of 30

Document Outline