OIA Jones Documents Released under the OIA.pdf

From:
Nigel Jones
1
To:
Recordkeeping Advice
Subject:
Public Records Act 2005 Breach Concern
Date:
Thursday, 4 December 2014 2:48:09 p.m.
Greetings,
I've got concerns over what seems to be a breach of the Public Records Act by either Auckland Transport or the
Auckland Transition Agency (which my understanding is, would be both covered by the Local Government
provisions).
ACT
In October I requested under the Local Government Official Information & Meetings Act (LGOIMA)
documents from 2009 relating to a public consultation performed by the former Auckland Regional Transport
Authority (ARTA) which was part of the Auckland Regional Council (ARC). My understanding is that ARTA
was treated as a Council Controlled Organization (CCO), and all functions were moved to Auckland Transport
when the councils merged in 2010.
A full copy of my LGOIMA request is available online at the FYI website (https://fyi.org nz/request/2120-re-
release-of-information-from-2009-western-bus-consultation#incoming-7374), in this request I asked for:
* Main announcement/information of Consultation Proposal (similar to the quoted text in the CBTF link, but
more detailed)
* Summary and/or Analysis of feedback received
INFORMATION
* Copies of submissions/feedback with appropriate redaction already in place (n.b. if this wasn't made available,
then it's okay)
* Announcement/summary of final decision
These documents were specifically in regards to a public transportion planning consultation focusing on Nor-
West Auckland. I know that the first, second and fourth items exist as they used to be available on the ARTA
website which either Auckland Transport or the Auckland Transition Agency kept running for a period of time
after the merger.
OFFICIAL
As you can see on the FYI site, on December 3 (yesterday) Auckland Transport rejected my LGOIMA request
citing "Auckland Transport has been unable to locate these documents in our archives." and further "contacted
Auckland Council Archives who have further confirmed they do not hold this information".
THE
Based on item 14 (pages 5/6) of
http://archives.govt nz/sites/default/files/list_of_protected_records_for_local_authorities_0.pdf (Protected
Records for Local Authorities), I observe that "Consultation drafts, and final strategic planning records" which
includes submissions and hearing of documents, and 'consultation on policies, strategies and plans' are
considered 'protected records' (and based on the Archives website means they cannot be destroyed without
permission).
UNDER
Considering that public transport planning is a strategic function of the former Auckland Regional Transport
Authority and the current Auckland Transport, I feel I have the right to expect that these documents should be
protected, and that AT's rejection of my request is a sign that they have been somehow lost/destroyed in both
physical and digital formats.
I should note that I do currently have a complaint open with the Office of the Ombudsman with regards to this
LGOIMA request (originally in regards to the extension that AT sought, but now per agreement with a
representative of the Ombudsman, focusing on their rejection reason and other not-directly related issues I have
raised. But after a telephone call today with the Ombudsman's office it seems that a complaint under the Public
RELEASED
Records Act is potentially more appropriate as there is the suggestion that the records are now missing or
potentially destroyed.
I observe that there isn't a particular place where a member of the general public can make a complaint, so I am
hoping that this contact address is the most appropriate to bring it to your attention.
If any more details are required, please let me know.

Regards,
Nigel Jones
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED

2
-----Original Message-----
From: Polly Martin
Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2014 11:52 a m.
To: s 9(2)(a)
Subject: FW: Public Records Act 2005 Breach Concern
Kia Ora Nigel
Thank you for your message of concern.
ACT
This request has been allocated and will need some time to explore the points you have raised.
We should be able to come back to you in the New Year with our response.
Nga mihi
POLLY MARTIN
Manager
Advice & Compliance
INFORMATION
Client Capability Directorate
Archives New Zealand
Te Rua Mahara o te Kawanatanga
The Department of Internal Affairs Te Tari Taiwhenua
DDI: 04 894 6067 ext 9267
F: 04 495 6210
T: 04 499 5595
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL

3
From:
Polly Martin
To:
Kylie Welch
Subject:
FW: Public Records Act 2005 Breach Concern
Date:
Tuesday, 9 December 2014 12:04:56 p.m.
Could I please allocate this to you.
Whilst I'm sure you already have an approach given the previous two investigations for which you have been
responsible can I suggest the following:
ACT
1. Take some time to work out whether the concerns seem to be valid. If not - put together a communication
informing this person that no further investigation will take place.
2. If so put together a communication informing the person that further investigation is required.
3. You will need to inform the agency concerned that we have received a complaint and will be investigating.
4. Work out the questions that need to be answered and investigate
5. Call a team meeting to work through the issues and for the team to provide feedback
6. Collate and report findings and recommendations to present to Manager/Director
7. Letter to the Chief Archivist
Bex is happy to provide support if needed.
INFORMATION
Nga mihi
Polly
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED

4
Archives New Zealand, 10 Mulgrave Street, Wel ington
Phone +64 4 499 5595
Fax +64 4 495 6210
Website www.dia.govt.nz  www.archives.govt.nz
ACT
19 December 2014
Dr David Warburton
Auckland Transport Authority
Private Bag 92250
Auckland 1142
INFORMATION
Dear Dr Warburton,
Notification of Complaint
This letter is to inform you that Archives New Zealand has received correspondence from Mr
Nigel Jones with regards to 2009 documents relating to the public consultation performed by
the former Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA) which
OFFICIAL  was part of the Auckland
Regional Council (CCO) regarding the North-West Auckland Western bus route consultation.
The Department of Internal Affairs takes all complaints made under the Public Records Act
2005 (the Act) seriously and we are committed to responding to them in a timely manner.
1. Details of complaint
Mr Jones’ specific complaint is that the fol owing documents were no longer available as per
his LGOIMA request (Auckland Transport reference CAS-419803-B8C5M6 dated 22 October
2014):
1. Main announcement information of consultation proposal
2. Summary and/or Analysis of Feedback received
3. Copies of Submissions/feedback
4. Copies of Submissions/feedback with appropriate redaction already in place
5. Announcement/summary of final decision
RELEASED UNDER THE

2. Response process
We have agreed to look further into the matter. We may be seeking further information
from Auckland Transport to assist in this matter.
ACT
Yours sincerely,
Kylie Welch
Archives Advisor
Archives New Zealand
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
2

Next Actions:
1. Email Auckland Transport to advise that we have received a complaint (and will be
investigating).
2. Email Nigel Jones requesting further clarification regarding ‘copies of submissions feedback’.
Nigel to advise what he means by copies.
3. Draft reply once Nigel has clarified what he means by copies.
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
2

6
From:
Kylie Welch
To:
s 9(2)(a)
Bcc:
Anna Monson
Subject:
Auckland Transport
Date:
Monday, 22 December 2014 3:28:00 p.m.
Attachments:
image001.png
Dear Mr Jones,
While assessing your concerns regarding your email sent on 4 December 2014 can you please
clarify what you mean by ‘Copies of submissions feedback’ and ‘Copies of submissions/feedback
ACT
with appropriate redaction already in place’.  Do you mean original version/authoritative
versions of records, or do you mean ‘duplicates’?   The ‘main announcement/information of
Consultation Proposal’ and the ‘Announcement/Summary of final decision’ are considered
Protected Records under Item 14: Consultation drafts and final strategic planning records within
the List of Protected Records for Local Authorities but copies of records; as you have requested;
are considered transitory under General Disposal Authority 7 (1.4).
We are assessing whether we will look further into how the main announcement/information of
the Consultation Proposal and the Announcement/Summary of final decision documents but
would like further clarification on the copies you are requesting.  INFORMATION
Regards
Kylie Welch | Archives NZ Advisor | Advice and Compliance Team
OFFICIAL
Archives New Zealand Te Rua Mahara o te Kawanatanga
Direct Dial: +64 4 894 6055 | Extn: 9255
HE
10 Mulgrave Street | PO Box 12-050, Wellington 6011, New Zealand
www.archives.govt.nz | www.thecommunityarchive.org.nz
RELEASED UNDER T

7
Compliance Action Process - Triage
Introduction
The Chief Archivist’s role under the Public Records Act 2005 (PRA) is to provide
recordkeeping advice and guidelines, and to monitor and report on compliance by public
ACT
offices. When people complain to the Chief Archivist about recordkeeping compliance, it
important to note there are limits to this role. For e.g.:
• The Chief Archivist can only consider complaints relating to public offices and public
records.
• The Chief Archivist cannot direct a public office to act on any guidance or audit
findings, nor is it appropriate for the Chief Archivist to take on the role or function as
a court if a public office is found to be non-compliant.
Also:
INFORMATION
• The Chief Archivist cannot investigate
• The Chief Archivist is not required under the PRA to respond to complaints it is a
discretionary activity
• The Chief Archivist is not a court and looking for a breach should not become the
focus.
There may also be cases where the Chief Archivist is not the best or the most suitable
authority to consider a complaint, for e.g. complaints about access to official or personal
information should be directed to the Office of the Ombudsmen or the Privacy
Commissioner.
However, issues may be raised either by others e.g. complaint or whistle-blower, or by
ourselves as a result of information received from an agency, audit findings, media reports
or our own intelligence gathering e.g. recordkeeping survey which may prompt the CA to
undertake a review of some aspect of recordkeeping.
UNDER THE OFFICIAL
Assessment of compliance action required
ED
So when an issue is raised first need to decide if we take any action or not:
• Is it an issue that falls under the PRA but also under another authority? Eg police,
Ombudsman, Privacy Commission – Yes – No action
• Is it an issue that fal s under the PRA only? i.e. Is it about current/recent
re
RELEAS cordkeeping practice/actions carried out by a public office? – Yes – Action
Explanation: we can only act in cases of public offices and public records. No point
looking into past recordkeeping practices which may no longer occur. We can look
into matters concerning the creation, maintenance and disposal or public records.
However, we cannot dictate what is “normal prudent business practice” for a public
office and so creation is hard to review or enforce.
Page 1 of 3

ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED

9
Initial assessment of compliance action
and recommendation to Chief Archivist
1. The Issue
ACT
Background
On 4 December 2014 a complaint was received from Nigel Jones regarding the fact that
records he had requested under the Local Government Official Information and Meeting Act
regarding records of the 2009 Public Consultation process about changes to some of the
North-West bus routes could not be located by either Auckland Transport or the Auckland
Council Archives.
While Mr Jones’ initial complaint was received in early December the initial response from
Archives was a request for clarification regarding some aspects of the request. Clarification
was received promptly but as this clarification was received directly by a staff member who
INFORMATION
left Archives New Zealand shortly afterwards it was not realised that the clarification had
been received and the enquiry was left unaddressed until Mr Jones queried the status of his
request on 17 April.
2. Assessment
Chief Archivist’s jurisdiction
The Chief Archivist can use direction to report and inspection powers in relation to public
offices and public records and archives.
Initial findings
Mr Jones’ enquiry included his correspondence with the local authorities. Records of
Policy, Planning or Strategy involving a process of public consultation constitute
Protected Records under section 14 of the List of protected records for local authorities
and an identical provision existed in section 14 of the preceding Local Government
Schedule
From the evidence presented it appears very possible that Auckland Transport (a Council
Control ed Organisation) appears to have acted contrary to its obligations under the
Public Records Act (PRA) as consent of the Chief Archivist is required before any
Protected Records can be disposed of (section 40, PRA). No evidence of any previous
consent to the disposal of these records could be found.
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
It is felt appropriate that the Chief Archivist request further information from Auckland
Transport so that the extent of the issue can be established and so that Archives New
Zealand can give appropriate advice and direction on proper practice and the PRA
obligations on Local Authorities and Council Controlled Organisations.
1

3. Risks
It is unlikely that the records being sought wil be found. By the nature of the request it is
likely that Auckland Transport may consider itself being wronged and burdened by an issue
that Mr Jones himself notes has become mostly a moot point due to the passage of time.
4. Benefits
If it is the case that a Council Controlled Organisation has acted incorrectly the Chief
ACT
Archivist can demonstrate leadership and raise awareness of the PRA obligations to the
council staff as well as the many Council Controlled Organisations.
5. Recommendation
That the Chief Archivist sign the enclosed letter requesting further information from
Auckland Transport so that we can establish whether there has been a breach of their PRA
obligations as well as the extent and potential remedies should an issue be identified.
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
2

ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED

National Office, PO Box 12 050, Wellington 6144, New Zealand
T 04 499 5595 F  04 495 6210    E  [email address]
www.archives.govt.nz
11
22 April 2015
Dr David Warburton
ACT
Chief Executive
Auckland Transport
Private Bag 92250
Auckland 1142
Wellington 6145
Dear Dr Warburton
On 19 December 2014 a letter was sent notifying your office that Archives New Zealand has
received a complaint under the Public Records Act 2005 (PRA) from Mr Nigel Jones regarding
INFORMATION
the unavailability of the records containing the information  sought in his request  of 22
October 2014 (your reference CAS-419803-B8C5M6).
Archives New Zealand takes all complaints made under the Public Records Act 2005 seriously
and we are committed to responding to them in a timely manner.  Due to unexpected
circumstances our response to this request has not been timely however we are now in a
position to give proper consideration to the concerns raised by Mr Jones.
OFFICIAL
In the original request of 22 October 2014 Mr Jones sought the fol owing information
regarding proposed changes to the North-West Auckland Western bus route consultation
THE
instigated in 2009
1.
Main announcement information of consultation proposal
2.
Summary and/or Analysis of Feedback received
3.
Copies of Submissions/feedback
4.
Copies of Submissions/feedback with appropriate redaction already in place
UNDER
5.
Announcement/summary of final decision
(Please note Mr Jones is aware that requests 3 and 4 are effectively duplicates –
his intention was to allow a measure of flexibility as to how the requested
information was delivered)
On the basis of the response Mr Jones received dated 3 December 2014 from Andrea
McKenzie it appears that the information sought could not be located. If these records do
not exist it would appear that Auckland Transport has fallen short of the requirements set
RELEASED
out in the List of Protected Records for Local Authorities which was issued 2 September 2013
or in contravention of the Local Government Schedule which was the predecessor to the List
of Protected Records depending on the date when the information being sought became lost
or irretrievable.
2015/0178

ACT
INFORMATION
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL

12
From:
Jonathan Newport
To:
s 9(2)(a)
Subject:
Archives New Zealand - complaint under the PRA
Date:
Wednesday, 29 April 2015 11:32:17 a.m.
29/04/2015
Dear Nigel
Thank you for your request for an update on your complaint about Auckland Transport’s
ACT
handling of records documenting the notifications and public consultations around the 2009
‘Western Bus Consultation’.
After considering your request the Chief Archivist has requested a report from Auckland
Transport regarding the matters raised in your complaint as we share your concerns that
Protected Records may have been disposed of without the authorisation of the Chief Archivist.
Once the report is received Archives New Zealand should be able to determine an appropriate
response.
I would note that unless Auckland Transport is determined to have deliberately disposed of
INFORMATION
records in knowing breach of its Public Records Act obligations any actions taken by Archives
New Zealand are likely to be remedial in nature.
We will keep you advised of further developments
Yours sincerely
Jonathan Newport
Archivist/Advisor
Archives New Zealand Te Rua te Mahara o te Kawanatanga
The Department of Internal Affairs Te Tari Taiwhenua
Direct Dial: +64 4 931 6981 Extn: 9283
10 Mulgrave Street
PO Box 12 050
Wellington 6144, New Zealand
www.archives.govt.nz
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL

13
From:
Antony Moss
To:
Polly Martin; Jonathan Newport; Raewyn Vogel
Subject:
Auckland Transport / Nigel Jones issue
Date:
Wednesday, 13 May 2015 1:47:36 p.m.
Not sure if we had this on a bring up.
Had a call from Gerrard at AT records. He ran through their answers to the questions in the
requirement to report letter and said that their response, which is due tomorrow, was nearly
done and should get through internal sign off within a couple of weeks. I said that was OK, and
ACT
have noted the spreadsheet.
Direct dial 04 496 1392 - Extn 9392 - [mobile number]
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED

3. Complaints
Complaints may be received in these formats:
• letters
• emails
• telephone(Recipient of the phone cal  wil  record details of complaint for records
management purposes)
ACT
3.1 Registering a complaint
The Manager, Advice & Compliance will register (or will delegate this task to a Senior
Advisor/Advisor) the complaint within 1 working day of receipt in the Complaints and
Investigations Register (A805075 on Objective) with the following information.
• Name of the source of the information
• Date that the information was received
• Details of the public office or local authority to which the complaint relates
INFORMATION
• Name of person complaint referred to and date
• Details of the request for intervention
A letter of acknowledgement will be completed by an Advisor and signed off by the
Manager, Advice & Compliance.
OFFICIAL
3.2  Early assessment
The Manager, Audit & Compliance or delegated staff member will decide if it is appropriate
THE
to progress a complaint within 30 working days.
An assessment wil  consist of:
• Reading the correspondence received
• Checking if there are breaches relating to creating, accessing, disposing or
UNDER
transferring of public records under the Public Records Act 2005
• Checking if this is a first time or subsequent breach
• Checking the organisation is a public office or the records are public or local authority
records
• Checking the age of the complaint is not so advanced it wil  hinder effective evidence
gathering e.g. more than five years old
• Assessing
RELEASED  the risks for severity or urgency if the complaint is not progressed to either
the records/complainant/public office or public sector
Page 2 of 9

3.3 Deciding on priority/urgency levels
If the complaint meets the criteria listed in 3.2 the complaint wil  need to be assessed for the
level of urgency and priority.
Non urgent/low priority
A complaint may be identified as non-urgent/low priority if any of the following apply:
• A delay in responding wil  have minimal impact on the public office’s ability to
ACT
manage all other public records effectively
• It is a first time occurrence
• Records of low value were allegedly lost/destroyed
• The provision of advice will be all that is required to bring the public office up to the
required standard of recordkeeping
• The complainant has complained to other “watchdogs” e.g. The Office of the
Ombudsman, The Privacy Commissioner and not received any assistance and we are
their last resort
INFORMATION
High urgency/high priority
A complaint may be identified as urgent if any of the fol owing apply:
• The complaint requires substantial effort to bring the public office to the required
recordkeeping standards i.e. meetings, monitoring, and support
• the complainant will be financially or socially (e.g.employ
OFFICIAL ment, accommodation,
health) disadvantaged
• the public office’s record keeping ability or systems will be compromised
THE
• the reputations or relationships of the Chief Archivist, Archives New Zealand and our
stakeholders are at risk
• significant personal or sensitive issues are involved, for example, politically sensitive
or personal reputation
• the details of the complaint or issues relevant to the complaint are or will be
UNDER
reported to the media or to our Minister
• the complaint involves a high profile figure or issue
• the complaint is complex and is likely to be resource intensive
• the complainant is behaving unreasonably
• the public office have had a legitimate complaint against them prior to this complaint
• the public office have demonstrated consistently poor record keeping practices
RELEASED
Page 3 of 9

Scenarios
The following will also help with ranking the complaints.
Impact of breach
Possible Responses
ACT
A  Minimal Impact (Non-systemic)
The Chief Archivist offers
advice to the administrative
−  The public office has comprehensive policies and  head of the public office to
procedures in place designed to ensure its
help bring the office up to
corporate compliance with the Public Records
the required standard of
Act. The policies and procedures are widely
recordkeeping.
understood and complied with across the public
office.  The Chief Archivist becomes aware of a
one-off case of a new employee in customer
The Manager, Disposal and
service who decided to dispose of a number of
Acquisitions directs the
relatively low value public records in order to
Portfolio Holder with
free up additional storage space for records that  responsibility for the
INFORMATION
need to be kept ‘in play’.
affected public office within
that team to liaise with the
public office to determine
whether any advice or
−  The public office has acknowledged the error
assistance is required.
and has agreed to put in place measures to
ensure that all new staff members are familiar
with recordkeeping requirements
B  Medium Impact
Audit findings reported to
the Director, Government
−  The public office has sound policies and
Recordkeeping.
procedures in place designed to ensure its
corporate compliance with the Public Records
Act, but these policies and procedures are not
The Chief Archivist issues a
widely understood by all staff (including
section 31 directive to the
recordkeeping staff).  The Chief Archivist
administrative head of the
becomes aware of a incidents where public
public body to report to
records have been destroyed by staff without
him/her on proposed
approval.
measures to address the
identified issues.
−
The Chief Archivist offers
  The public office acknowledges the error and
agrees to put in place measures to ensure that
assistance to the
all staff members are familiar with
administrative head to
recordkeeping requirements.
enable the public office to
bring themselves up to the
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
required standards
Consider commissioning a
follow up section 33 audit of
the public office within 6
years to determine whether
Page 4 of 9

Impact of breach
Possible Responses
the remedial measures have
been implemented
effectively and the office is
compliant
C  Significant (systematic) breach
Chief Archivist directs the
ACT
Government Recordkeeping
−  The public office has minimal policies and
directorate to review and
procedures in place designed to ensure its
assist the Public office in
corporate compliance with the Public Records
order to identify and remedy
Act. These policies and procedures are not
the recordkeeping
widely understood by staff and there is no
deficiencies in place.
evidence that any attempt has been made by
management to communicate recordkeeping
requirements to staff.
Chief Archivist directs the
Director, Government
Recordkeeping to develop a
plan of engagement in order
INFORMATION
−  An investigation reveals a significant number of
to assist the public office in
cases over the past 5 years where some public
meeting its obligations.
records of long term value have been damaged
as a result of poor storage conditions while
other records have been destroyed without
The Chief Archivist issues a
approval.
section 31 directive to the
administrative head of the
public body to report to
OFFICIAL
him/her on proposed
measures to address the
identified issues.
THE
Include specific details of the
audit findings in the section
32 and 35 reports to the
Minister Responsible for
Archives
UNDER
Schedule a fol ow up section
33 audit of the public office
within 6 years with a specific
brief to determine whether
the remedial measures have
been implemented
effectively and the office has
remedied the issues
RELEASED
identified earlier.
Findings reported to Chief
Archivist
Page 5 of 9

Impact of breach
Possible Responses
D  Major (systematic) breach
Crown Law Office legal
advice obtained on the audit
−  There are minimal or no recordkeeping policies
findings
or procedures in place within the public office.
Previous indications from the public office (via
the PRA audit process and general
Independent Auditor briefed
ACT
correspondence with the office indicated that
to obtain any additional
there were policies and procedures in place and  information necessary to
that the public office was aware of its
determine the way forward.
obligations under the Act.
Chief Archivist briefs with
the State Services
−
Commissioner and
  There is prima facie evidence of knowing
breaches of the requirements of the Act and of
Controller and Auditor-
the compulsory standards over a sustained
General on pre iminary audit
period of time.
findings
INFORMATION
Crown Law Office and New
−
Zealand Police requested to
  There is no evidence of any remedial action
underway to improve the quality of
initiate prosecution action
recordkeeping or a commitment to do so.
(within 6 months of the first
Despite the issuance of direction from the Chief  audit)
Archivist.
Include specific details of the
audit findings in the section
32 and 35 reports to the
Minister Responsible for
Archives
Schedule a fol ow up section
33 audit of the public office
within 6 years with a specific
brief to determine whether
the remedial measures have
been implemented
effectively and the office has
remedied the issues
identified earlier.
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
3.4 Dismissing a complaint
Page 6 of 9

If a complaint does not meet the above criteria, a letter will be sent to the complainant
informing them that there wil not be any further action taken and why. (See also template
letters in Objective in folder A850463)
4 Al ocation
The Manager of Advice & Compliance will allocate a complaint to a Senior Advisor/Advisor
with:
ACT
• The complaint handling approach
• Information about the resources needed to manage the investigation
• A deadline for completion
5 Processing a non-urgent/low priority complaint
Upon receipt of the complaint from the Manager, Advice & Compliance, the Senior Advisor/
Advisor will:
•
INFORMATION
Save each complaint and related correspondence into a separate file within the
‘Compliance Actions folder in objective (Objective reference: fA28885)
• Draft letters to the public office/complainant on behalf of the Chief Archivist
informing them that their
• Obtain context through gathering historical/background information about the
organisation:
i) Complaints and Investigations Register under the Strategic
Management/Legislation/Public Records Act/Compliance Actions folders
(Objective reference: fA28885)
THE OFFICIAL
Recordkeeping advice register under the Recordkeeping folder in Objective
R
(Objective reference: A805302)
ii)Audit reports in the Client folder on Objective (Objective reference: fA10430)
iii) Portfolio Management Workflow Spreadsheets under the Appraisal and
UNDE
Disposal folder in Objective (Objective reference: qA85737)
Div)The complainant/public office if necessary
• Draft recommendations for the public office regarding advice or action
needed/resources and obtain sign off by Manager, Advice and Compliance
5 1 Proce
RELEASE ssing a high urgency/high priority complaint
Upon receipt of the complaint from the Manager, Advice & Compliance, the Senior Advisor/
Advisor will:
• Save each complaint into a separate file within the ‘Compliance Actions folder in
objective (Objective reference: fA28885)
Page 7 of 9

• Draft letters to the public office/complainant on behalf of the Chief Archivist
regarding the  breach and informing them that an investigation will take place
• Obtain context through gathering historical/background information about the
organisation:
i) Complaints and Investigations Register under the Strategic
Management/Legislation/Public Records Act/Compliance Actions folders
(Objective reference: fA28885)
ACT
Recordkeeping advice register under the Recordkeeping folder in Objective
(Objective reference: A805302)
ii)Audit reports in the Client folder on Objective (Objective reference: fA10430)
iii) Portfolio Management Workflow Spreadsheets under the Appraisal and
Disposal folder in Objective (Objective reference: qA85737)
iv) The complainant/public office if necessary
• Draft a Direction to report letter and obtain sign off from Chief Archivist if required
INFORMATION
• Follow up with an audit/visit within the agreed timeframe if required
NB A Direction to report letter will ask the public office specifically about their
recordkeeping activities relating to the complaint and ask for an explanation within a set
timeframe.
The Senior Advisor/Advisor will also:
OFFICIAL
• Keep the Manager, Advice & Compliance up to date on progress and wil  update the
files about this complaint on Objective in the Compliance Action folder accordingly
• Keep the Manager, Advice & Compliance up to date on any changes that wil  affect
the weighting/priority/urgency/risk levels and will amend the register accordingly
and the Complaints folder on Objective.
6 Closure of a complaint
The Senior Advisor/Advisor, Advice & Compliance will close the complaint within 5 working
days of completion on the Complaints and Investigations Register (A805075 on Objective)
with the fol owing information.
• Objective reference number(s) to file note and/or other documents created during
the investigation
• Action taken/outcome
• Date closed
RELEASED UNDER THE
Page 8 of 9

Please use the following Template letters to correspond with the complainant and the
organisation. (Objective folder fA42281)
• Acknowledgement letter
• Non investigation letter (for non breaches)
• Breach found letter to complainant
• Breach found letter to organisation
• Breach found complainant more information letter
ACT
• Breach found organisation more information letter
• Direction to report letter
• Closure complainant letter
• Closure complainant letter
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
Page 9 of 9

16
From:
Jonathan Newport
To:
Antony Moss
Subject:
Regarding a PRA complaint from Nigel Jones
Date:
Friday, 30 October 2015 10:04:29 a.m.
Hi Tony,
Just checking with you before we pursue things further – months ago back we received a
complaint from Nigel Jones about recordkeeping at Auckland Transport.
ACT
They were requested* to respond by 14 May, but you received a call from ‘Gerrard’ at Auckland
Transport on the 13th advising that they were finalising their response, but it still needed to go
through internal signoff and required a couple more weeks.
As far as I can see, this was the last we heard –is this correct as far as you are aware?
The driver here is that Mr Jones has made an enquiry this morning as to whether we ever
received a response.
Thanks,
INFORMATION
Jonathan
·
It wasn’t quite a formal S31 direction, since Auckland Transport is considered a Local
Authority, but it was intended to be as close as we could reasonably make it.
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED

17
From:
Jonathan Newport
To:
"Nigel Jones"
Subject:
RE: Archives New Zealand - complaint under the PRA
Date:
Friday, 30 October 2015 10:09:18 a.m.
30/10/2015
Hello Nigel,
Thank you for your email - at the moment, it appears that we did not receive a report though we were advised
ACT
back in May that the report was in process. I'm following this up and I hope to advise you more conclusively
soon.
Kind regards,
Jonathan Newport
Archivist/Advisor
Archives New Zealand Te Rua te Mahara o te Kawanatanga
The Department of Internal Affairs Te Tari Taiwhenua
Direct Dial: +64 4 931 6981 Extn: 9283
INFORMATION
10 Mulgrave Street
PO Box 12 050
Wellington 6144, New Zealand
www.archives.govt nz
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED

18
From:
Jonathan Newport
To:
"[email address]"
Subject:
Archives New Zealand - enquiry about status of response
Date:
Friday, 30 October 2015 11:35:34 a.m.
30/10/2015
Hello Gerard,
The Chief Archivist sent a letter addressed to Dr David Warburton dated the 22nd of April 2015
ACT
regarding a complaint made by Mr Nigel Jones (your reference CAS-419803-B8C5M6). The Chief
Archivists letter asked several questions relating to Mr Jones’ enquiry and a response was
requested by the 14th of May.
I understand you called the Director of Government Recordkeeping at Archives New Zealand,
Antony Moss, on the 13th of May advising that Auckland Transports response to the Chief
Archivist’s letter was in process of obtaining internal sign-off and that some additional time was
required before the response would be sent (our understanding was that this additional time
would be on the scale of a couple of weeks or thereabouts).
INFORMATION
As of today, Archives New Zealand has not registered a response to the questions raised in the
Chief Archivist’s letter. Are you able to advise whether this response was sent? If not, it would be
appreciated if a summary of the circumstances that have led to the delay/cancellation of the
response would be appreciated.
Archives has received an enquiry from Mr Jones as to whether a response had been received by
OFFICIAL
Archives New Zealand and we would like to advise him of the progress made to date.
Kind regards,
THE
Jonathan Newport
Archivist/AdvisorUNDER
Archives New Zealand Te Rua te Mahara o te Kawanatanga
The Department of Internal Affairs Te Tari Taiwhenua
Direct Dial: +64 4 931 6981 Extn: 9283
10 Mulgrave Street
PO Box 12 050
Wellington 6144, New Zealand
www.archives.govt.nz
RELEASED

19
From: Gerard Rooijakkers (AT)
Sent: Tuesday, 3 November 2015 12:39 p.m.
To: 'Jonathan Newport'
Subject: Interim information regarding Archives New Zealand's enquiry
Hello Jonathan,
I indicated in a phone conversation with Anthony Moss in May 2015 that ARTA records are not
held by Auckland Transport, the physical records reside with the custodian Auckland Council. In
ACT
spite of great efforts, Auckland Council’s Records and Archives staff have been unable to retrieve
the information requested by Mr Jones.
I have initiated extensive research of digital data on back-up tapes, which included data of the old
ARTA organisation, resulting in the retrieval of some related information. Based on these research
and retrieval efforts I have drafted a response, which is being reviewed by our management, prior
to being addressed to the Chief Archivist. I will enquire at what stage the review of he draft
response is and inform you of the outcome of my enquiry.
Given AT’s continuing formal response process, please regard this information as an update
rather than a formal response.
Kind regards,
Gerard
INFORMATION
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL

ACT
INFORMATION
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL

21
From:
Gerard Rooijakkers (AT)
To:
Polly Martin
Subject:
FW: Interim information regarding Archives New Zealand"s enquiry
Date:
Tuesday, 10 November 2015 8:21:57 a.m.
Attachments:
image001.jpg
Hi Polly,
In response to your phone message please see email below.
ACT
Cheers,
Gerard Rooijakkers | Information
Management Team Lead
Business Technology
Level 1, Vodafone Building, Smales Farm
Business Park,
68-76 Taharoto Road, Takapuna
Private Bag 92250, Auckland 1142
DDI +64 9 447 4245
M 021 830977
F +64 9 355 3550
[email address]
www.at.govt.nz
INFORMATION
From: Gerard Rooijakkers (AT)
Sent: Tuesday, 3 November 2015 12:39 p.m.
To: 'Jonathan Newport'
Subject: Interim information regarding Archives New Zealand's enquiry
Hello Jonathan,
I indicated in a phone conversation with Anthony Moss in May 2015 that ARTA records are not
held by Auckland Transport, the physical records reside with the custodian Auckland Council. In
spite of great efforts, Auckland Council’s Records and Archives staff have been unable to retrieve
the information requested by Mr Jones.
I have initiated extensive research of digital data on back-up tapes, which included data of the old
ARTA organisation, resulting in the retrieval of some related information. Based on these research
and retrieval efforts I have drafted a response, which is being reviewed by our management, prior
to being addressed to the Chief Archivist. I will enquire at what stage the review of the draft
respon e is and inform you of the outcome of my enquiry.
Given AT’s continuing formal response process, please regard this information as an update
rather than a formal response.
Kind regards,
Gerard
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL

23
From:
Gerard Rooijakkers (AT)
To:
Polly Martin
Cc:
Ian M Smith (AT)
Subject:
RE: Interim information regarding Archives New Zealand"s enquiry
Date:
Monday, 30 November 2015 8:35:11 a.m.
Attachments:
image001.jpg
Hi Polly,
I have escalated this matter with Ian M. Smith, Enterprise Information Manager:
[email address]
Kind regards,
ACT
Gerard
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED

ACT
INFORMATION
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL

25
Compliance Assessment report to Chief
Archivist
1. The Issue
ACT
Background
On 4 December 2014 a complaint was received from Nigel Jones saying that the records he
had requested under the Local Government Official Information and Meeting Act regarding
the 2009 Public Consultation process about changes to some of the North-West bus routes
could not be located by either Auckland Transport or the Auckland Council Archives.  These
records were created by the Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA) which as an
entity that no longer exists.  Auckland Transport now performs the functions previously
performed by the ARTA.   All records were transferred to the control of Auckland Council as
part of the 2010 merger of all Auckland Regional Councils.
INFORMATION
While Mr Jones’ initial complaint was received in early December the initial response from
Archives was a request for clarification regarding some aspects of the request. Clarification
was received promptly but this clarification was received directly by a staff member who left
Archives New Zealand shortly afterwards. It was not realised that the clarification had been
received and the enquiry was left unaddressed until Mr Jones queried the status of his
request on 17 April 2015.
OFFICIAL
1. Assessment
Chief Archivist’s jurisdiction
THE
The Chief Archivist can use direction to report and inspection powers in relation to public
offices, local authorities, public and protected records and archives.
Initial findings  UNDER
Mr Jones’ enquiry included his correspondence with the local authorities. Records of Policy,
Planning or Strategy involving a process of public consultation constitute Protected Records
under section 14 of the List of protected records for local authorities and an identical
provision existed in section 14 of the preceding Local Government Schedule (in force in
2009).
From the evidence presented it appears very possible that Auckland Transport (a Council
Controlled Organisation) appears to have acted contrary to its obligations under the Public
Records Act (PRA) as consent of the Chief Archivist is required before any Protected Records
RELEASED
can be disposed of (section 40, PRA). No evidence of any previous notification of the disposal
of these records could be found.
1

It was felt appropriate that the Chief Archivist request further information from Auckland
Transport so that the extent of the issue could be established and so that Archives New
Zealand gives appropriate advice and direction on proper practice around the PRA
obligations for Local Authorities and Council Controlled Organisations.
2. Decision to Direct Auckland Transport to report
The fol owing questions were put to Auckland Transport  as part of the Chief Archivist’s
direction to report:
ACT
1.
The extent of the search originally undertaken in response to the original request
of 22 October 2014. It is indicated that the archives of Auckland Transport and
the Auckland Council were searched. It is not clear whether the search extended
any further, or if there would be any merit to a further search.
2.
Whether Auckland Transport staff are briefed and trained around the obligation
to ensure that records of the types set out in the List of Protected Records for
Local Authorities or the Local Government Schedule are not disposed of without
the consent of the Chief Archivist.
3.
What was the cause of the loss of the records sought, and (if possible) the date
INFORMATION
or timeframe in which the records were lost.
4.
If the cause of the loss of records is identified as being due to inadequate  or
absent policy around the retention of records of this nature, what actions
Auckland Transport proposes to take or has since taken in order to ensure that
Protected Records are retained and accessible.
3. Response from Auckland Transport
OFFICIAL
“Search for records”
Auckland transport and Auckland Council hav
THE  e undertaken further searches. We have been
able to locate some electronic records regarding the 2009 Bus Review in West Auckland from
back-up tapes of a decommissioned shared drive, which was held by Auckland Transport.
However, I have been unable to source the relevant physical records from ARTA’s archive
held by Auckland Council.
UNDER
“Training on records covered in the List of Protected Records for Local Authorities”
Auckland Transport staff receives records and information management training at the start
of their employment. We also regular review and communicate records and information
management guidelines, which are published on Auckland Transport’s intranet.
“Cause of the records loss is identified and if possible the date and timeframe”
It’s my conclusion from our investigations that when ARTA ceased to exist, efforts to
RELEASED
consolidate records from individual ARTA staff and contractors had been insufficient.
“Actions to ensure Protected Records are retained and accessible”
Unfortunately I am not in a position to comment on any of your queries regarding the
retention of ARTA records as these are not managed by Auckland transport.
2

We are reviewing our current records management processes and procedures based on this
case and wil  be taking measures to ensure that our records continue to be managed in
accordance with the Public Records Act 2005.
Assessment
Four of the five record types Mr Jones was seeking are considered Protected Records under
section 14 of the List of Protected Records.  These records should have been retained;
however, these records are no longer in the control of Auckland Transport (AT) and are now  ACT
in the control of Auckland Council since the merger in 2010. No evidence could be found
that notification of the disposal of these records to the Chief Archivist had been made
The Records and Document Management project component of the Business Process and
Systems workstream as part of the Auckland Transition Authority had developed a Service
Level Agreement (SLA) to have been signed in October 2010.  This SLA was intended to
provide linkages to existing council information bases, historical records, and legacy systems
to ensure ongoing continuity.  No evidence of the implementation of the SLA has been
provided.
INFORMATION
Recommendations
It is therefore recommended that
• a request be made to Auckland Council for the procedures and processes that are
in place to ensure accessibility, any deficiencies in the procedures and the plans to
address them.
• a request for a progress update of the implementation of the SLA between
Auckland Transport and Auckland Council.
Approved:      Yes     No
Date:
Signature:
Marilyn Little
Chief Archivist, Archives New Zealand
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
3

ACT
INFORMATION
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL

27
T 04 499 5595 E  [email address]
www.archives.govt.nz
29 February 2016
Stephen Town
Chief Executive
ACT
Auckland Council
[email address]
Dear Mr Town
On the 4 December 2014, Archives New Zealand received a complaint under the Public
Records Act (2005) from Mr Nigel Jones.  Mr Jones sought from Auckland Transport in
October 2014, information regarding proposed changes to the North-West Auckland
INFORMATION
Western bus route consultation instigated in 2009. He received a response from Auckland
Transport in December 2014 that the records sought could not be located.
In April 2015, Auckland Transport were requested under the direction of section 31 of the
Public Records Act 2005 (PRA) to report to me on the loss of the records containing
information sought by Mr Nigel Jones in his request of 22 October 2014 to Auckland
Transport.
OFFICIAL
Auckland Transport reported to us in December 2015 that further searches for the records
had been undertaken and provided evidence to show some of the records were able to be
retrieved from backup tapes held by Auckland Transport. That when Auckland Regional
THE
Transport Authority (ARTA) ceased to exist, the management of records and processes at
this time was insufficient, and that ARTA records are now managed by Auckland Council.
I am concerned that four of the five record types Mr Jones was seeking are considered
Protected Records under section 14 of the List of Protected Records.  I understand these
records are now in the control of A
UNDER  uckland Council since the merger in 2010.  My
understanding is that as part of the transition process, Auckland Transition Authority
developed a Service Level Agreement (SLA) between Auckland Council and Auckland
Transport. This SLA was intended to provide linkages to existing council information bases,
historical records, and legacy systems to ensure ongoing continuity.
RELEASED
Ref: 2014/5905

I am requesting information from Auckland Council, including records confirming that this
SLA exists and how it is being implemented.
If you have any queries please contact Antony Moss, Director Government Recordkeeping
(027 476 0361) at Archives New Zealand.
Yours sincerely
ACT
Marilyn Little
Chief Archivist
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
Page 2 of 2

T 04 499 5595 E  [email address]
www.archives.govt.nz
28
29 February 2016
Roger Jones
Chief Technology Officer
Auckland Transport
ACT
[email address]
Dear Mr Jones
Thank you for your response dated 21 December 2015 received under the direction of
section 31 of the Public Records Act 2005 (PRA) to report to me on the loss of the records
containing information sought by Mr Nigel Jones in his request of 22 October 2014 to
Auckland Transport.
INFORMATION
I have made an assessment and taken into account the information provided in your
response to our direction.  Your main points were;
1. that further searches for the records had been undertaken and you provided
evidence as attachments (with your letter) to show that some of the records were
able to be retrieved from backup tapes held by Auckland Transport;
2. that Auckland Transport staff receive records and information management training
OFFICIAL
at the start of their employment and that guidelines for records and information
management are regularly reviewed and published on the Auckland transport
intranet;
THE
3. that when Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA) ceased to exist, the
management of records and processes at this time was insufficient;
4. that ARTA records are now managed by Auckland Council; and
5. that Auckland Transport’s records management processes and procedures are
currently being reviewed based on this case.
UNDER
I am concerned that four of the five record types Mr Jones was seeking are considered
Protected Records under section 14 of the List of Protected Records. I understand these
records are not controlled by Auckland Transport (AT) and were transferred into the control
of Auckland Council since the merger in 2010.
The Records and Document Management project component of the Business Process and
Systems workstream as part of the Auckland Transition Authority had developed a Service
RELEASED
Level Agreement (SLA) to have been signed in October 2010.  This SLA was intended to
provide linkages to existing council information bases, historical records, and legacy systems
to ensure ongoing continuity.  Records providing information about the implementation of
this SLA would provide some assurance that Auckland Transport is able to access records
originally created by the ARTA.
Ref: 2014/5905

In light of this, I request:
• Auckland Transport Authority provide information about the implementation of the
aforementioned SLA to provide assurance that they are able to access records
originally created by the ARTA.
I ask that this information be provided by Friday 8 April 2016.
I recommend
• regular records and information management training is undertaken and that it must ACT
cover the processes Auckland Transport have in place for protected records to ensure
that these are well managed.
If you have any queries please contact Antony Moss, Director Government Recordkeeping
(027 476 0361) at Archives New Zealand.
Yours sincerely
INFORMATION
Marilyn Little
Chief Archivist
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED
Page 2 of 2

30
Compliance Assessment report to Chief
Archivist
Purpose
This assessment outlines action taken in response to a complaint from Nigel Jones about
ACT
Auckland Transport recordkeeping and proposes a subsequent request for information from
Auckland Council.
Original complaint from Nigel Jones
On 4 December 2014 Nigel Jones complained that the records he had requested regarding
the 2009 public consultation about changes to some Auckland bus routes could not be
located by either Auckland Transport or the Auckland Council Archives (document A).  These
records were created by the Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA) which no longer
exists.  Auckland Transport now performs the functions previously performed by ARTA.   All
ARTA records were to be transferred to the control of Auckland Council as part of the 2010
INFORMATION
merger of Auckland councils.
Mr Jones sought records of policy, planning or strategy involving a process of public
consultation. These are Protected Records under section 14 of the List of protected records
for local authorities and an identical provision existed in section 14 of the preceding Local
Government Schedule (in force in 2009).  OFFICIAL
Archives New Zealand sought clarification about an aspect of Mr Jones’s complaint, which
was received from him promptly. Our consideration of the matter did not resume until April
2015, prompted by an update request from Mr Jones and fol owing the resignation of the
THE
initial case officer.
Chief Archivist’s jurisdiction
The Chief Archivist has the function of protecting certain local authority records [section
11(1)(d)(i)]. Audit and direction to report powers do not extend to local authorities, though
UNDER
inspection of local authority records is provided for by section 29.
Information requested from Auckland Transport
While unable to issue a direction to report, the Chief Archivist requested further information
from Auckland Transport on 22 April 2015 (document B) to assess the extent of the issue and
to inform any remedial action or need for advice to local authorities and council-controlled
organisations.  The table below contains the questions put to Auckland Transport in April
2015 and their re
RELEASED  sponses, which were not received until December 2015.
1
2014/5905 A904592

ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED

31
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED

ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
RELEASED