'We can do this better': Government departments look to review OIA processes
Friday, 14 June 2019
A number of Government departments are looking to change the way they handle Official Information Act (OIA) requests.
The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and Hutt Valley DHB have confirmed they're working to better their processes around the OIA.
The move comes after Stuff's Redacted Project, which was launched in March, examined the current problems with the act.
**READ MORE:
* Keeping an eye on the information gatekeepers
* What is the OIA, how does it help, and why does it matter?
* Protect the public's right to know: cure the unhealthy Official Information Act
* Redacted - how information the public should know about disappears from view**
Stuff's reporting revealed the OIA is sometimes abused, to the detriment of the public.
Those who have requested information through the OIA will be familiar with being declined or delayed, receiving partial replies and blacked-out text, or even going through the Ombudsman to fight to have information released into the public eye, Stuff reported.
WHAT IS THE OIA?
The Official Information Act (OIA) allows all New Zealanders to ask the government or any public body for information. It was passed in 1982.
It provides accountability, for the benefit of the public, and is widely used by media, politicians, researchers, activists, interest groups, and citizens.
What exactly will come from the public consultation on the OIA, which the Ministry of Justice sought this year, is not yet known. Submissions closed in April.
However small changes are already being made.
'WE CAN DO THIS BETTER'
The Environment Protection Agency's chief executive Dr Allan Freeth told Stuff that its OIA process and the way EPA communicates decisions been under review for years.
The agency began a programme called Open Book which looks at how it can be as transparent as possible.
As part of that process, they started thinking about OIAs. 'Like any government department it's very easy for us to become defensive about that.' For the past 6-8 months they had been talking about their approach to OIAs; looking at them as a communication channel.
Part of the idea with the Open Book process was that, if the EPA was open enough there would be fewer OIAs.
After reading the Redacted series, Freeth said he realised how frustrating the OIA process could be, and how easy it was to end up in an adversarial relationship. 'I thought we can do this better.'
'SOMETIMES, WE GET IT WRONG'
In a statement a spokesperson for Hutt Valley DHB said that 'We acknowledge there is room for improvement in our process for managing OIAs and that's why we are reviewing how we do this'.
Hutt Valley uses the following criteria for publishing OIAs:
* There have been numerous requests for the information or related information.
* The information is in the public interest and consistent with the test set out in Section 9(1) of the Act.
* Where appropriate, Hutt valley DHB will publish additional information alongside responses to support the material released, provide proper context, and mitigate any potential risk of misinterpretation of the information by the general public.
* Hutt Valley DHB will ensure that, prior to the publication of any material, it complies with other legislative and legal requirements including the Privacy Act 1993, the Health Information Privacy Code 1994 and any other applicable statutes.
'Sometimes though we get it wrong, and recently we corrected a decision to redact content in an OIA. We appreciate this being bought to our attention,' the spokesperson said.
'As a result of this issue being highlighted we have put a staff member on an OIA training programme. Our leadership team meets weekly to discuss progress on OIAs and we will review our OIA policy to ensure it's fit for purpose. We will also make sure key staff are able to access regular training on their legal obligations in this area.'