Newsroom has a followup piece about its complaint about Stuart Nash refusing to release compromising emails to donors in which he revealed cabinet discussions. Nash had used the "hat game", claiming that those communications were made in his capacity as an MP, not a Minister, and so not covered by the Official Information Act (and so, for OIA purposes, they did not exist). Newsroom had complained, then dropped the complaint when the Ombudsman took too long, then revived it when the emails were leaked and Nash was sacked. And the Ombudsman has now made the obvious ruling: that the emails were held in a Ministerial capacity, and so Nash violated the OIA. That's good, but it gets better, because the Ombudsman has also directly attacked the hat game:
In announcing his decision, Boshier also set out his expectations about how future ministers should respond to OIA requests. He emphasised the importance of transparency and underlined the OIA’s broad application.This is an obvious ruling, given the 2016 ruling that information received by Ministers is official by default, and Ministers have to prove that it was received in another capacity. But its good to have it formally stated. And hopefully there'll be an official case note, so that Ministers will have no excuse, and for requesters to refer to when Ministers illegally try and hide information.“This case highlights the potential for the roles of an MP and a minister to overlap and for information to be held in both capacities. The Official Information Act is an important constitutional safeguard. It is based on the principle of making information available,” said Boshier. “In my view the OIA should apply where there is a ministerial overlap of any kind.”
