Freedom of information very complex issue, says study

Press, 8 May 1978, Page 14

Freedom of information very complex issue, says study

Further study is needed before New Zealand adopts “freedom of information” legislation or guidelines, according to a report just released by the Environmental Council.

However, says the report in principle, members of the public should get freer access to Government information than they now have. The report was prepared by a working party from tljp environmental movement, after a request from the Minister for the Environment (Mr V. S. Young) that the council examine the question of restrictions on official information.

The working party met heads of Government departments, and leaders of the environmental movement, culminating in a meeting in Wellington on March 21 attended by the heads of seven Government departments, the chairmen of various statutory bodies, and representatives of the main national environmental groups.

The working party found it could not disentangle the problem of the availability and dissemination of environmental information from the more general question of “confidentiality” across a wider range of Government activities. Accordingly, the report deals with the problem in a general way, not just as it applies to environmental information.

The report notes an atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion between some Government departments and some members of the public, and declares that there is a need for this confrontation to be replaced by co-operation. The hope is expressed that its talks may have helped to clear away some of the reasons for their suspicoin. However, it says a broad consensus exists about several issues relating to freedoim of information. The “public interest” is regarded as a sufficient reason for making information available to the community at large. Public participation in decision-making is regarded as essential to securing public co-operation Government policies. Such participation is possible, says the report, only when the public have adequate information.

The report quotes the remarks of the New Zealand Planning Council, and its chairman (Sir Frank Holmes), about the need for “participation in planning” as a way of generating a sense of common purpose, and as a way of restoring confidence in the way developm e n t projects are mounted.

There is agreement, too, according to the report, that the present legal situation is obscure, and that the present laws and regulations governing the release of information are no longer applicable. A new Government policy about information is seen as necessary to ensure effective and uniform rules regarding the release of information.

Adequate safeguards for defence, security and personal privacy are acknowledged in the report to be necessary. But there is divergence of opinion about how greater freedom of information can be achieved while maintaining these safeguards. Divergence of opinion is most marked over whether legislation should be passed to control the classification of documents — and establish procedures for appeals against any refusal by a Government official to disclose information sought —

or whether “guidelines” alone will be sufficient.

The Government departments uniformly favour a “guidelines approach”, but generally not to the extent of rejecting out of hand the possibility or desirability of some form of legislation. The report notes, however, the general public demand for “uncompromising free-dom-of-information legislation which could be enforced by the courts.”

This demand for’ legislation has already surfaced from individual politicians on both sides of the House and in the statement by the Minister of Justice (Mr Thomson) in March that a freedom of information provision might be included in the Government’s election manifesto.

The report notes, however, that whether legislation or guidelines are adopted, the practical steps to implement either will be identical and that the same kind of detailed directives and instructions will be needed.

Among matters needing clarification or guidelines are what documents should be classified; who should do the classifying; how the classifications should be reviewed; what rights of appeal there should be against classifications; and to Whom such appeals should he directed.

An act or guidelines for

freedom of information would also require some departments to reorganise the ways they obtain, record and co-ordinate information. This would have to be the subject of further investigation, says the report. The report emphasises that the working party, and those involved in the discussions leading up to the release of the report all believe there is a need for further careful study and research before any attempt is made to draft legislation or guidelines on freedom of information.

"Legislation passed without very careful preliminary inquiry, and discussion by all concerned, might well create more problems than it solved,” it says. It recommends that two, co-ordinated studies be made —the first to draft possible legislation or guidelines, and the second to investigate the ways information is now gathered, co-ordinated and recorded, with an eye to storage and retrieval systems better geared to a freedom of information policy.

The Environmental Council has endorsed the recommendation of the working party that groups be set up to study draft guidelines or legislation, and that a report on the more technical issues relating to possible freedom of information legislation be prepared.