Freedom of information at risk

Freedom of information in New Zealand is in deep trouble. Bureaucrats and politicians constantly flout their obligations under the Official Information Act, which holds that information is open to the public unless special circumstances apply. The assumption is that ordinary people are entitled to know what their rulers are up to.

But politicians and bureaucrats are by their nature secretive, because secrecy means power. Asking them to tell the world what they are doing is asking them to betray their nature and their interests.

Only opposition politicians believe in the public’s right to know. And officials who really believe in the public’s right to know rarely end up in senior positions. They are too much of a threat to the institution.

Finally, the Ombudsman’s Office, which should be the guardian of official information, has not always done its job well. The retiring Chief Ombudsman, Beverley Wakem, last year warned that journalists seeking information like ‘‘rottweilers on heat’’ could hardly complain if ‘‘innately conservative’’ officials became ‘‘gun-shy’’. This made her sound more like a grumpy official than a champion of the OIA.

Journalists now have a profoundly jaundiced view of the OIA and the people who administer it. They know that the system needs root and branch reform.

Now the officials and the ombudsmen seem to be promising to do just that. The State Services Commission and the Office of the Ombudsman say they will work together to help state agencies improve the way they respond to OIA requests.

The essence of this proposal is to issue regular public reports on how well the officials are complying with the law. This sounds a fine thing, but everything depends on exactly how it works.

What it should be - and what bureaucrats will never agree to call it - is a strategy of naming and shaming. That is, every single department or government agency should have to publish detailed statistics on how many requests they received under the OIA, how many they turned down or upheld or partially upheld, and why.

It is astonishing that they have not had to do this before now.

Journalists know that some departments are much more secretive than others, but they cannot prove this with hard facts. A naming and shaming strategy would show up the officials who think governing is none of the public’s business.

Both the Ombudsman’s Office and the SSC, however, have new bosses who have made much of their liberal credentials. They both want to prove they really do believe in freedom of information.