Public’s right to know is core tenet

In the week before the 2014 election, National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden told a packed Auckland Town Hall meeting that a secret programme called Speargun meant our Government was conducting mass surveillance of its citizens. “If you live in New Zealand, you are being watched,” he said.

Then-Prime Minister John Key rejected the claim, saying Speargun had never gone ahead and he was so opposed to it he would resign if mass surveillance of New Zealand took place.

The truth underlying these two incompatible claims was revealed last week: Speargun was canned, but later than Key claimed — and only after he was told Snowden was likely to reveal the plans.

The timing suggests the cancellation was less over concern for civil liberties and more an urge to contain possible political and legal fallout.

The fact it took more than three years and two general elections for this information to become known — and even then only after tenacious digging by Herald reporter David Fisher and complaints to the Ombudsman — is concerning.

This episode is the clearest of several recent examples of reluctance by the Government and its agencies to promptly release information as required by the Official Information Act.

A feature of at least the past two Governments, it has spurred an arms race of sorts, as seen by National’s thousands of requests to ministers for a list of daily meetings.

No one wins this race. While delaying the release of information can make the issue stale, it can also backfire because administrative hold-ups are indistinguishable from political cover-ups.

The Official Information Act is not broken, but it does need a renewed commitment by both Government and requesters — but particularly the former — to comply with its spirit.

Passed in 1982, the legislation was revolutionary: It replaced the Official Secrets Act, and had a starting point that all information held by Government was public and withholding it required a good reason.

This issue is of concern to more than just political parties or the media. The act is an invaluable tool for academics, lawyers and even parents trying to understand school policies and decisions.

Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier had made great strides since his appointment in 2015. He is clearing a backlog of complaints, fostering dialogue to help make requests more reasonable and more reasonably expedited, and has drawn attention to how the act will only work if its principles are bought into from the top down.

The new Government has made a welcome commitment to open government — Claire Curran has even been given ministerial responsibility for the subject — but this commitment must be communicated across the whole of government.

The bluster and chronic delays around Speargun should never be repeated. The public has a right to know, and know in a timely fashion, how and why their government is operating, particularly around significant decisions like general elections.

To fail to release information in time for one election may be regarded as unfortunate, to have OIA delays stretch to two looks like obfuscation.