Ombudsman hampered by Official Information Act

Press, 30 July 1986, Page 8

Ombudsman hampered by Official Information Act

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington

The Ombudsman is being hampered in his job by the provisions of the Official Information legislation. In his annual report to Parliament, the Chief Ombudsman, Mr L. J. Castle, said he had. investigated several requests for official information that had been declined under section 52 of the Official Information Act which supports other legislation restricting or prohibiting the availability of official information. In such cases, his function under the Official Information Act was to 'decide whether the

secrecy provision invoked had been applied properly to the information sought. It had been apparent beyond argument in some cases that the information sought did fall within the provision, Mr Castle said. However, where that was not the case, he had met difficulties because section 19 (3) of the Ombudsman Act meant he could not require a person, who was bound by a secrecy provision, to supply him with the information sought This shortcoming left an Ombudsman in the invidious position of having to form an opinion on a complaint without having seen the information at

issue, he said. Accordingly, he had notified the Information Authority of the difficulty and had made representations to the Minister of Justice, Mr Palmer, seeking amendments to the legislation so that information could be supplied to him without breaching any secrecy provision. “Pending these amendments, I am hampered in the effective discharge of my responsibilities under the Official Information Act when secrecy provisions bave been invoked,”

A major impediment to the success of the review process had been its slowness. In order to be of any

use to the person seeking it, the information needed to be obtained promptly. Although there were continuing staff shortages in a number of departments, he wanted to be able to report a significant improvement in the coming year. Delays had an adverse effect on the efficiency of his office and its standing in the eyes of complainants and the public.

Mr Castle said there were often extensive delays, in some cases up to a year, but more often about three months. That seemed hardly within the spirit of the empowering legislation.'