Often, it comes after a scandal involving the government of the day.
Those not in government at the time insist there must be changes to make governments more accountable.
In 2012 and 2017 Labour wanted a law change which would allow the Ombudsman to charge government departments for OIA delays and breaches.
When it went into government, in 2020 it promised a review of the 1982 Act, something recommended by Ministry of Justice officials in 2019.
It never happened.
In 2023, after the controversy over the release of emails involving Labour minister Stuart Nash, Act New Zealand’s leader David Seymour was adamant there needed to be criminal penalties for knowing and deliberate non-compliance with the Act. Ministers and government departments needed to know there would be consequences for deliberately flouting the rules.
In the leadup to the 2023 election National also said it was committed to reviewing the OIA, suggesting the Office of the Ombudsman needed more enforcement powers.
Nobody in the government seemed too concerned when the Ombudsman criticised Casey Costello’s appalling handling of OIA requests around changes to the smoke-free legislation or singled out Health New Zealand Te Whatu Ora’s frequent floutings of the law.
Given the history of previous review promises, it is unlikely journalists and others fed up with the way too many agencies disregard the current law will have been dancing on the tables over the recent revelation the government is planning a review if granted a second term.
The approach by Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith on this is already concerning. He made no official announcement on it, the irony of which has not been lost on commentators.
More chilling is that his initial emphasis is on the cost of complying with the law and what revisions could be made to make it more ‘‘efficient and practical’’.
He suggests there has been a 394% increase in OIA requests since 2016, but questions have been raised about whether too much has been included in this count.
Mr Goldsmith seems concerned about the breadth of information being sought, but we wonder what he might consider should be left out.
Already, we hear instances of officials encouraged to avoid putting information into print and an indifference to the requirements of the Public Records Act.
The minister’s first action on the way to the review has been to commission research on the cost of responding to OIA requests. This is to be carried out by a consultancy firm and involve 40 public service agencies.
Newsroom reports it will examine volumes, scope and complexity of requests received to better understand which processes involve the most administrative burden on the agencies.
The plan is for this to be delivered to the ministry later in the year to help inform any future policy options related to the OIA.
This is the wrong place to start any review. It sends the message that transparency and accountability are only acceptable if they do not cost too much.
It would have been better to undertake a comprehensive public consultation on the Act, covering all aspects of how it is or is not working at the moment, what more could be done to proactively release information, what emphasis should be given to public interest, and whether there should be penalties for breaching the Act.
At the moment there is no penalty for breaching the OIA, but the Ombudsman Act 1975 provides for a maximum fine of $200 for failing to comply with any lawful requirement of an Ombudsman.
Former attorney-general Chris Finlayson is among those who would like to see any reformation of the Act include sanctions against those unreasonably blocking official information requests, even to the extent of making government department heads and ministers personally liable.
He is critical of political interference in the current application of the law and too much information being withheld on the grounds of free and frank expression and commercial sensitivity.
We fear his former colleagues are not listening.
