Petrocorp fears bill’s effect

Press, 15 March 1982, Page 29

Petrocorp fears bill’s effect

Wellington reporter

The Petroleum Corporation of New Zealand, a partner with Mobil in the multi-million-dollar Motonui synthetic plant in Taranaki, believes it would be in an “untenable commercial position” if it was subject to proposals in the Official Information Bill which will come before Parliament soon.

Petrocorp’s general manager, Mr J. Hogg, told the Parliamentary Select Committee on the bill that its exemptions on the disclosure of information were subject to an override — the public interest. Although the bill apparently protected the commercial activities of groups made subject to the bill in its schedule, the public interest overrode that This meant that the group could give its overseas partners no guarantee that technical information given con-

fidentially would remain confidential.

“Some parties would decline to deal with' the group at all if the group or any of its proposed members were to be subject to the proposed legislation," Mr Hogg said. “Certainly they will be extremely reluctant to begin or continue dealings with us,” he said. “We will be placed at a severe disadvantage.”

Mr Hogg told the committee that the group was not seeking a confidentiality clause in every contract that would prevent the disclosure of any information to inquirers not employees. This was a retreat from the submission made by the group’s legal advisers, and presented by Mr Hogg. The

submission said the bill should be amended so that no information belonging to the group should have to be made available to any persons. . .•

The Minister of Justice: (Mr McLay) asked Mr Hogg if he seriously believed that: the bill would require the: group to divulge information damaging to the group’s commercial interests — that was, about marketing, sales, technical and processing matters, research, and exploration. Mr Hogg said that while protections offered under the bill were subject to a judgment on over-riding public interest, that danger existed. Mr McLay said that such an inference was "drawing the long bow too far."

The bill.was not intended to make any company subject to any greater risks than at present. A court of law could now require ’confidential information to be released in the interests of justice, but this power was used in exceptional circumstances only. The bill would not expose Petrocorp and subsidiaries to any greater risk.

Mr Hogg replied that no definition of the public interest seemed to exist, and he was wary of the definition that might be used by the person making the judgment Mrs F. H. Wilde (Lab., Wellington Central) said that the group’s- Minister would not want to allow damage to the group’s interests, and that in this it had double protection.

“Do you not have confidence in your Minister?” she said.

Mr Hogg: This one’s all right.

Mr J. Minogue (Nat, Hamilton West) said that the Government could not “wear” contracts entered into on a confidential basis that would prevent any New Zealander ever knowing their substance.

This would jcreate routine unaccountability, he said. Mr Hogg said he agreed this was far too wide, and that, he could not think of any matter on which the group would want protection outside research and exploration; expertise granted by partners on a guarantee of confidentiality; and information damaging to its commercial interests. The committee asked the group’s legal advisers to prepare to cite specific instances in which public interest would override protections given in the bill. Mr Hogg said there was a danger the bill would endanger existing contracts between Petrocorp and its overseas partners, and the committee asked for a special paper on this.

As an instance in which the public interest could force divulging of information confidential under contract, Mr Hogg cited the group’s having to give proprietary information on a chromate-destruction process because a New Zealand court needed the information to assess whether dangers were being threatened to public health.