1. In ACC’s response of 10 May 2013, they state that they will provide information about “payments made to medical providers” because it concerns the “expenditure of public funds”. Yet they do not provide the same information (“travel expenses and related costs”) that ACC has paid to an individual person, despite the fact that is the same public funds. This seems inconsistent.

2. In their 14 May 2013 email, they state that the information at question (travel expenses and related costs) is “personal information”. It may be “personal information” in the sense that it relates to a person, but the justification for withholding is not that it is personal information, but that withholding is “necessary” (in terms of the act) to protect the doctor’s privacy. I fail to see how the withholding of “travel expenses and related costs” is necessary to protect his privacy. He is carrying out a public function with public money; that is not private, and neither should the expenditure.

3. Despite the fact that, in their 14 May 2013 email, they provide some explanation as to why they withhold “personal information” because of the safety of its assessors, I do not see how releasing details of “travel expenses and related costs” would engender threats or endanger his safety. If there is a clear link, then section 6(d) would be the appropriate withholding ground. However this is perhaps a higher test because ACC would need to show that such prejudice was “likely” (in terms of the Act), i.e. a “serious or real and substantial risk to a protected interest, a risk that might well eventuate” (Ombudsman’s practice guidelines)

4. In their 14 May 2013 email, they also say that the publication of the “names” of assessors has resulted in “harassment and threats”. The name of Dr Collier is already public by virtue of your request, so I do not see how publication of his name alone, would be likely to result in harm to him.

1. In respect of your email to ACC dated 10 May 2013, you say that “I would like this request reviewed and challenge the ACC to liaise with a local MP in Rotorua and disclose to that MP what you deem 'private'.” I find this an odd request to make. Firstly, it is outside the bounds of the Act. Secondly, it is not appropriate for you to “challenge” the ACC to release “ ‘private’ ” information to an MP. ACC have been found to have inadvertently released private information, are making changes to their information management practices to actually keep private information, private.

I would question why you think ACC would even contemplate the idea of releasing private information to an MP. This is something a constituent would do, but not a government agency.

2. ACC’s advice that you are welcome to make a complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman is indeed the correct action for you to take. If you do require this information, then you should consider pursuing that course of action, being aware that timeframes for completing complaints can take months (3-5).

Hi Luke
Many thanks for taking the time to post an annotation. I have to admit to not been a pro on these sort of matters and can get side-tracked on a subject etc. when making a request etc. In reference to the 10 may 2013 comment of;

I would like this request reviewed and challenge the ACC to liaise
with a local MP in Rotorua and disclose to that MP what you deem
'private'. (i.e. reference to Travel Costs as ACC deemed this private)

If what I am hearing is if the ACC in their sincere truthfulness feel it is most certainly private information, yes it would be unlawful to disclose to the likes of an MP etc. However because all these declined decisions are subjective on the ACC’s part and no other government agency to oversee the initial ACC official information act replies before posting, the ACC certainly have the upper hand in controlling time delays and the like.

Where information is sought to compliment an accumulation of other documents to compile and put forward an allegation etc. to appropriate agencies/councils these obstructions and delays can have severe consequence’s to those people suffering should allegation’s be correct.

The ombudsmen’s office has proven to be a fruitless option where obtaining answers and any type of resolve. E.g. an application was made in November 2011 to Ombudsmen’s office, this still hasn't been sorted and paperwork in my possession is evident the ACC have mislead the Ombudsmen.

Kind Regards and Welcome further opinion
Anthony

There was a delay in the sense that they took until the 20th day to notify you that ACC were extending the timeframe by ten working days to answer your request. But their response came less than that; it came three days later. So while it did take just over a month, the actions were compliant with the Act.

I now understand your rateionale for why you challenged ACC to release to a local MP, the information it deemed private. However the appropriate oversight of a public agency’s administrative handling of official information request, and more broadly an agency’s internal processes, is the domain of the Ombudsman (or in some cases the Office of the Auditor General). It would not be appropriate for an MP to review or assess the decision made by ACC. An MP however may receive information given to him/her by a constituent, and the MP may then write to the Minister or Ministry on behalf of the constituent asking for the Minister/Ministry to deal with the constituent’s issue.

I accept that there are delays in the Office of the Ombudsman resolving OIA complaints, due to resource constraints. This is undesirable for the requester and the agency. Justice delayed is justice denied.