The National Party needs to come clean on what it intends to do with the Official Information Act. It is simply not good enough for Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith to kick the can past the election.
Last year Goldsmith instructed the Ministry of Justice to prepare a briefing paper on the operation and cost of the OIA. Stuff revealed on Friday that the results had been quietly placed on the ministry website a fortnight ago under the heading Regulatory Stewardship, with no accompanying announcement.
The documents indicate that Goldsmith started the ball rolling last year on possible changes to the OIA by seeking information on the costs of OIA requests across the public sector. Consultants produced a report in November giving indicative costs, which they estimated to be $183.6 million last year. In March the Secretary for Justice, Andrew Kibblewhite, and State Services Commissioner, Sir Brian Roche, wrote to government agencies signalling more detailed requests for information and the consultants, Tregaskis Brown, were commissioned to do more detailed work. They broadly confirmed the original costings in a final report dated 14 July 2026, but repeated a number of caveats (such as the way OIA request numbers were calculated) that could push the real costs significantly higher. Initial assumptions about better ways of proactively releasing state sector information were also confirmed.
Information on OIA patterns and costs, plus advice from the ministry, have been made available to the Beehive progressively throughout the year but last week Goldsmith simply said: “No decisions have been made. We will consider this advice, including the estimated costs, in the next parliamentary term”.
The Official Information Act is the foundation stone of open government in this country. It is the only guarantee we have of transparency over what is being done in our name and on our behalf. Therefore, we have a right to know what is on the minister’s mind. After all, he was thinking about it a year ago.
The ministry has indicated four areas for potential reform. On the surface, they look innocuous enough.
- Area 1 – whether the scope and coverage is fit for purpose;
- Area 2 – improvements to practice and process;
- Area 3 – possible clarifications of any withholding and refusal grounds;
- Area 4 – any changes to system roles and leadership.
Changes in each area, however, could fundamentally alter the public’s ability to maintain oversight of the actions of government and its agencies.
Scope and coverage under the current act already includes a list of 29 reasons for withholding information, extending as far as the Catch-22 lookalike “Information concerning existence of certain information”. Would that list be extended? Would the definition of official information be changed to increase the ranges of information that is not within its scope?
Practices and processes already include the ability to duck-shove between ministers and agencies and to fully play out the respond-within-10-working days in the hope that a media request will lose its immediacy. Will ‘efficiencies’ limit the amount of information supplied or allow arbitrary classification – and rejection – of requests as ‘frivolous’ or ‘overly complex’? Similarly, does “possible clarification of any withholding and refusal grounds” provide an opportunity to close the door even further? Would cost-saving measures aimed at curbing the sky-rocketing number of requests by individuals (now aided by chatbots and AI) impact the ability of news media to get answers to legitimate questions raised on behalf of the wider public?
And do changes to system roles and leadership pave the way for removing the Ombudsman from his role as guardian of the principle of open government? The OIA has already become too politicised and a change to oversight could increase the amount of political leverage by, for instance, giving ministers a greater role in adjudication.
It is entirely possible that none of these outcomes are being considered by Minister Goldsmith, his party, or coalition partners. However, the electorate has a right to know what is on their minds in relation to this vitally important piece of legislation.
Let’s go back to the beginning, before the Official Information Act was passed. I keep on my bookshelf a copy of the 1980 report of the Committee on Official Information which led to that legislation. It is titled “Towards Open Government” and, under the learned chairmanship of Professor Alan Danks, it set out a compelling case for turning the pervasive Official Secrets Act on its head. It found “the presumption of non-disclosure is no longer helpful, or indeed, valid”. The chapter headed “The Reasons for Openness” began with this:
The case for more openness in government is compelling. It rests on the democratic principle of encouraging participation in public affairs and ensuring the accountability of those in office; it also derives from the interests of individuals. A no less important consideration is that the Government requires public understanding and support to get its policies carried out. This can only come from an informed public.
That did not change in the ensuing 46 years and it will not change. The Official Information Act was passed with those imperatives in mind and although politicians and officials may have observed the letter of the law, they have not always acted in the spirit of it.
In the book Complacent Nation which I wrote a decade ago, I concluded that politicians, public servants (and corporate executives) have difficulty in recognising the public’s right to know. I believed (and continue to believe) that they recognise a need to inform when it is in their own interests to do so and to withhold when the information reflects poorly on them.
It is for that reason that I view with disquiet any intention to meddle with the Official Information Act and why I would not take any politician – be they National, Act, New Zealand First, Labour, Green, Te Paati Māori, Opportunity or any other ilk – on trust.
Paul Goldsmith and his party have had ample time to determine any significant changes they intend to make to the Act, even if some of the detail has yet to be worked through with officials.
They are dealing with a constitutional cornerstone and have a duty to allow voters to determine whether they have a mandate to make changes to it. That can only happen if the minister and his party disclose before the election what they intend to do in our name. Ironically, that is what the Official Information Act stands for – disclosure unless there is a compelling reason to withhold information. On this issue, no such compulsion exists.