Minister 'should not have final word’

Press, 4 March 1982, Page 13

Minister 'should not have final word’

Parliamentary reporter A Cabinet Minister should not have the final word on disclosure of official information. a former Ombudsman, Sir Guy Powles, has told the special Parliamentary committee on the Official Information Bill. The bill seeks to open up access to official information. Sir Guy, who was Ombudsman for 15 years, presented a submission by the Coalition for Open Government. The Federation of Labour and Federated Farmers also objected yesterday to final powers in the hands of the Minister. Sir Guy said that he did not propose that the Ombudsman be given power to make decisions binding on . anyone — this was not the proper function of the office. As the bill proposed, the Ombudsman should be permitted to make a recommendation only to the Minister concerned, urging disclosure of information. However, a person or organisation then faced with a Ministerial veto of the Ombudsman’s recommendation should then be entitled to seek an order from the High Court that the information be disclosed. The High Court would conduct a fresh hearing of all

evidence, and if it found in favour of disclosure, make an order binding on the department to release the information, Sir Guy said. Ministers would have the right to file an affidavit that information should not be disclosed. Sir Guy proposed this course because, he said, legal opinion was divided on the legality of reviews of decisions of Ministers and Ombudsmen. An application to the High Court for an order was not a review in judicial terms. The order made by the High Court could be appealed to the Court of Appeal or the Privy Council, he said. However, redress to the Ombudsman as proposed in the bill would “fix the great majority” of complaint? against refusals to disclose information, he said. The Coalition for Open Government- also asked that the Official Information Act should override every other statute at present protecting information. Only 12 departments were not protected. At least 22 were protected by a “vast collection of acts,” Sir Guy said. The complexity of a general override was substantial, said Mr G. W. R. Palmer (Labour, Christchurch Central). Sir

Guy said that this was a matter for draftsmen and lawyers, and that a review of every statute might accomplish this. Mr K. Thompson, for the. coalition, said that many of the prohibitions on disclosure in acts would be covered by a section now in the bill disallowing disclosure where it would prejudice or disadvantage commercial activities.

The rest would probably fall under eight headings roughly compassing' court proceedings, oaths of confidentiality required of employees, and security. The general override would be subject to classification of specific sections of acts not to be overridden by the Official Information Act, Sir Guy said. This classification would be done by the special Information Authority proposed in the bill, within 12 months after application to specify sections immune from the bill. The coalition also said that the bill should be extended to cover local authorities at present not required in the bill to disclose official information. . Because of the content and quality of the submission, the coalition was asked, to appear again to allow extended questioning to continue.