If you request information using the OIA, you are eventually going to get letters or emails, which normally will have names and contact details of the people sending them. And inevitably these days, you will find that information has been redacted. In some cases, this does not matter - its not what you were looking for. But if you're trying to find out where a policy came from - which agency, which Minister's office, and especially, which lobbyist - you need names to connect the dots and uncover the story of what happened.
There's an example of what I'm talking about in this proactive release from Ministerial Services of emails around Fonterra's lobbying for their corrupt climate law. The names and contact details of the lobbyists have been redacted under s9(2)(a) - privacy. Meanwhile, the names of the public servants and ministerial staff who facilitated the lobbying have been redacted under s9(2)(g)(ii) - the prevention of "improper pressure or harassment".
All of this is completely contrary to the Ombudsman's guidelines.
Firstly, the public servants: the Ombudsman has issued very clear guidance on the names and contact details of public sector employees. The short version is that the names of public servants are not private. As it says, "New Zealand does not have a tradition of an anonymous public service", and there's no privacy interest in people knowing that you are a public servant or that you did or said a particular thing in an official capacity.
Agencies have not been deterred by this guidance, arguing that protecting the privacy of their staff is a matter of workplace health and safety, or making weird claims that secrecy is necessary to prevent harassment in order to avoid giving out names. The Ombudsman hasn't bought any of this either. There is a long line of decisions on s9(2)(a) and 9(2)(g)(ii) saying that it requires "something more than unwanted scrutiny or criticism"; that releasing names is not contrary to the HSWA and requests from "recurrent complainants" do not meet the test for harassment. Even working in a sensitive position is insufficient - prison officers enjoy no blanket protection - and such blanket decisions are of course prohibited by Kelsey v Minister of Trade anyway.
Basically, if an agency wishes to hide employee names or workplace contact information, it needs to show both a "reasonable likelihood" of improper pressure or harassment, and a clear link between "the anticipated behaviour, the impact upon the person to whom it is directed, and the effective conduct of public affairs". The test can be met - here's an example - but not without a specific, identifiable threat. It seems unlikely that Ministerial Services can do that here, and they're just illegally applying a blanket ban.
What about the lobbyist? While they're not government officials, there's generally no privacy interest in "stuff you do for your job", and where that job is lobbying, there is a clear public interest in the provenance of government decisions, in knowing who our ministers and officials are listening to when making them. If you lobby a government agency or minister about a matter of public policy, then there is absolutely no expectation of privacy. Ministerial Services is just covering up for the government here.
Unfortunately, its a proactive release, so unchallengeable. Which is why the government loves them so much. But next time you see this sort of bullshit in an OIA response, and you want the information, complain to the Ombudsman. If only to make agencies think twice about the future work they're buying for themselves by making shitty redaction decisions.
