How the Ombudsman must wish he could stop playing the same official information tune. How he must hanker not to have to chastise public servants repeatedly for failing to apply the letter and spirit of the law on the release of information to the public. How he would appreciate not having to demonstrate a perseverance rivalling that of those who request information.
And how he might wonder if the bureaucracy calculates that his office will, if ignored, eventually give up on its concerns - just as disdainful public servants calculate that even the most damaging information loses its sting if its release can be delayed long enough.
What must be most dispiriting for the Ombudsman is that despite his entreaties the bureaucratic fortifications show few signs of cracking. In its annual report last year, the office called for the development of an "official information culture" and damned Government departments for being increasingly legalistic in their attempts to thwart public access to documents.
This year it has again criticised public servants for undermining the 1982 Official Information Act by stalling information requests and failing to understand how the act works. More specifically, it has rebuked the Prime Minister's department for systematically refusing to issue documents requested under the act. The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet had chosen that course even though some of that information was "innocuous". Further, in an approach echoing departments' increasingly legalistic approach, it had brought in former prime ministers and other experts to defend its belief that advice to the Prime Minister deserved special protection.
In response to that somewhat arrogant posturing, the Ombudsman concluded there should be no blanket exemption for withholding particular information. As he was bound to. The Official Information Act clearly details reasons for withholding information.
These encompass potential damage to the country's economic well-being, its security or the commercial activities of Government agencies. These exemptions are reasonable enough; the release of all other information should be a straightforward matter.
That is far from the case in reality. Too often bureaucrats lose sight of their responsibility to the public, and of the public's ultimate ownership of information. The failure of the Prime Minister's department to release even innocuous information shows the entrenched flaws in the culture. So deeply do they run that this year the Ombudsman had to intervene twice to nudge the department to release a letter detailing Helen Clark's concerns about proposed British visa changes. Such information could never have been exempt.
The Ombudsman suggests there is an urgent need for Government agencies to be trained on the act. But 20 years of abuse and misuse suggests more fundamental remedies are required. First, the act needs to be amended to deny public servants the ability to hide behind its procedures. No longer should they be able to delay and circumvent legitimate requests for information. Further, a new authority is required to enforce stricter procedures and uphold the act's principles. It would be an advocate for those seeking information, as opposed to the Ombudsman's role as a complaints vehicle.
Britain is soon to introduce official information procedures similar to ours. They are seen as the catalyst for transparency and accountability - as was the case here 20 years ago. But enthusiasm will soon wane if a culture that recognises the right to information is not implanted immediately. Anything less and disdain will flourish - the sort of disdain that led the Ombudsman to conclude there had been no overall improvement in the attitude of public servants.
If the Government is ever to enjoy the public's trust, that culture must be changed - by whatever means it takes.
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.