Official Information Act users face being unmasked

Tuesday, 13 November 2018

In a case of the hunter becoming the hunted, people making Official Information Act requests cannot bank on remaining anonymous.

Over the past two years the Commerce Commission has received 10 requests from companies wanting to know the identity of those seeking official information about them.

Three requesters - all of them companies - were identified with their consent, five had their identity withheld under the privacy protection clause in the Act, and a further two cases were undecided.

The commission said it routinely notified companies of Official Information Act (OIA) requests about them, and if the company wanted to know who was asking, the commission consulted the requester about releasing their identity.

* Clare Curran and Derek Handley's Gmails to come out through OIA

* Ombudsman finds Auckland University's OIA fee 'unreasonable'

* Official Information Act request charges for media in spotlight**

In deciding whether the name remained secret, it looked at privacy issues, whether release was in the public interest, and whether it could adversely affect commercial interests or future supply of information to the commission.

Stuff sought details of such 'reverse' OIA requests after becoming the subject of one lodged by Flight Centre.

Official Information Act users may find they cannot hide behind a mask of secrecy.

A Stuff enquiry to the Commerce Commission revealed there had been 24 complaints about Flight Centre over a 12 month period, none of which led to further action.

Stuff did not object to being identified when consulted by the commission, and when approached for comment Flight Centre said it had sought the information 'in the interests of openness and transparency.'

A spokesman for the Office of the Ombudsman said it was good practice for agencies to consult third parties if release of information could have a negative impact on their privacy, confidentiality or commercial interests, and they may need to know the identity of the requester to make an informed assessment of potential harm.

'On the other hand, some requesters may have legitimate reasons to keep their identities secret. Agencies need to weigh up these competing interests and make a decision.

The identification of requesters came under the spotlight last month after Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier announced an enquiry into the way Callaghan Innovation administered its OIA requests following Taxpayers' Union claims it had resorted to using fictitious identities because Callaghan Innovation gave its requests lower priority.

The Ombudsman said the use of fictitious names by requesters was not unlawful, 'but I believe they need to be up front about who they are unless they have good reason to keep their identities secret.'

Taxpayers' Union executive director Jordan Williams said it was not unreasonable for companies to want to know who was seeking information about them.

But he was unhappy Callaghan Innovation had not consulted the union before releasing names of union requesters to a media organisation, including those of interns working in its research unit.

'We didn't mind if it was the Taxpayers Union [being identified], but I'm pretty protective of our research interns because it's unfair for them to be drawn into the debate.'

Williams said people seeking anonymity could make that clear in their initial OIA request.

'It's very common for lawyers to file OIAs [on behalf of clients] and the agency doesn't know who the client is.

'That's the beauty of the OIA, it should not matter who is asking the question, it's a democratic tool,' Williams said.