Andrew Geddes and croaking Cassandra writes fine analyses of the constitutional implications of the Official Information Act in general and for the Reserve Bank respectively.
What is forgotten in much of the analysis here is a detailed consideration of each piece of information will raise the fixed cost of processing every single Official Information Act request made. Many more requests will be refused because they’re either too time consuming or the requester is unwilling to pay the costs of the research and collation necessary for the request.
The Australian experience is you can pay for the substantial research and collation necessary to consider the request properly and then have the entire information refused and be sent a very large bill.
In the High Court earlier this week, Justice Collins – the former Solicitor–General – handed down a significant judgement in an Official Information Act case. The judgement itself is a fairly easy read, and Otago University law professor Andrew Geddis has a nice summary of the issues and implications here.
Professor Jane Kelsey, of Auckland University, had sought from the Minister of Trade, Tim Groser, material associated with the TPP negotiations. The Minister declined Professor Kelsey’s application, prompting her (and several NGOs) to seek a judicial review of the Minister’s decision (which had been upheld by the Ombudsman).
Professor Kelsey’s challenge was largely successful. It is a decision that does not reflect well on Tim Groser, and perhaps reflects even less well on the Chief Ombudsman. As Andrew Geddis put it
The third audience for this judgment is the Ombudsman’s office, and the Chief Ombudsman Beverley Wakem in particular. Because…
View original post 2,395 more words
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments