Protect your right to know

By default, you should have access to official government information. Too often it doesn’t work like that. We’re a country slouching towards increased state secrecy. Reputation-conscious politicians, a risk-averse public sector conditioned to shield ministers from embarrassment, the explosion in ‘‘PR professionals’’, and the punishing workload on the Ombudsman’s office have combined to thwart the public’s right to know.

The Official Information Act (OIA) was passed in 1982 and allows all New Zealanders to ask the government or any public body for information. It provides accountability, for the benefit of the public, and it’s widely used not just by the media and politicians, but by researchers, interest groups, activists and citizens.

It can be used to discover why 111 emergency responses were delayed; what local restaurant hygiene is like; how your children’s school boards operate; or data on hospital waiting times. You can use it to find out how the government spends your money.

Its use routinely results in crucial information of high public interest being revealed, such as the fiasco around drug smuggler Karel Sroubek’s residency, billionaire Peter Thiel’s controversial citizenship, and key details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

But anyone who uses the OIA knows it’s not functioning as it should.

Stuff’s new project, Redacted, launched today, examines why public information is being kept from you, and what can be done to rectify this problem.

The good news is the Government is asking for feedback on how the OIA is working and whether a review is warranted. (Submissions opened last week and close on April 18.) We say that review must go ahead.

You may remember this Government pledged to be the ‘‘most open, most transparent Government that New Zealand has ever had’’. It’s time to live up to that promise.

Politicians will undoubtedly point to new State Services Commission (SSC) figures released this week to show the OIA is working. Those numbers reveal 110 agencies have replied to 95 per cent of OIA requests within 20 working days – the maximum time allowed under the law.

That’s good news and those agencies should be applauded. But what those numbers don’t tell you is the quality of the response: how many requests were declined or only partially granted.

We canvassed public agencies to ask how many OIAs they received and how they responded: granted in full, partially granted (redacted), or declined in full. The response rate was patchy at best. Only a third could provide a breakdown of how they replied. It’s also telling that this week’s SSC data shows complaints to the Ombudsman are up, by 34 per cent in two years.

The OIA is a good law, and we’re lucky to have it. The problem is in how it’s being applied, and that comes back to culture. As Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier says, what’s needed is a quantum leap in attitude: ‘‘encouraging agencies to answer the question ‘Why shouldn’t I release this information?’, as opposed to asking ‘Why should I release this information?’ ’’

There’s a sense that some officials regard finding a reason to decline OIA requests as a win for their organisation. Instead, it’s a loss for New Zealand. Information is power and that power belongs with you.

The OIA is a good law, and we’re lucky to have it. The problem is in how it’s being applied.