Auckland Council's restrictions on stadium reports upheld

Auckland Council's restrictions on stadium reports upheld
Wednesday 28 November, 2018
Two Auckland councillors complained to the Ombudsman about lack of access to two “pre-feasibility” reports on the proposed national stadium in Auckland. Councillors were provided unredacted copies on the basis that the reports were not copied, that they were kept in a secure location, and that they were returned to the mayor’s office once the councillors had read them. The Ombudsman has upheld the Council’s decision to impose these conditions.
Councillor Watson told reporters that he was disappointed in the Ombudsman’s decision. He criticised the Ombudsman for not dealing with what he called a “culture of withholding information that exists with the Auckland Council”. Councillor Watson also complained that the reports, which cost nearly $1 million, have not been debated by any Council committee despite the high level of public interest in the stadium proposal.
At common law, councillors do not have an absolute right to access all Council information, but rather a right of access so far as it is reasonably necessary to enable the councillor to perform their duties, a principle established in an English case from the 1930s. It is because of the responsibilities of their role that councillors have a general (but not unrestricted) right of access to Council documents. But no councillor is, in the words of Justice Humphreys, “charged with the duty of making himself familiar with every document in the possession of [Council]”.
Turning to LGOIMA considerations, the Ombudsman noted that there is a strong public interest in councillors having access to the information that they require to perform their duty. In the case of the stadium reports there was a strong argument that councillors should be kept informed on the factors that might influence such an important proposal, even in its early stages. The public interest in councillors having access to the two reports was met by making the reports available subject to conditions. The Ombudsman was satisfied that the conditions were reasonable. He noted in particular that there was no time limit on access nor was there a limit on the number of times that the councillors could request the reports.
Meanwhile, a member’s bill proposing to amend LGOIMA to give councillors greater rights of access to Council information still awaits being drawn in the ballot. The bill, introduced by Opposition MP Denise Lee in February this year, would shorten the time for responding to requests from councillors under LGOIMA and would narrow the grounds for refusal of those requests. It has been criticised for focusing on LGOIMA when councillors’ core rights and duties arise under the LGA.
For assistance with questions relating the provision of sensitive information to councillors, including in response to LGOIMA requests, please contact Megan Crocket.
Related Articles

Councils challenge to transfer of water services rejected in High Court
Thursday 30 March, 2023

Director personal liability more acute as tough times bite business
Tuesday 14 February, 2023

When the rubber hits the road - All aboard Aotearoa's challenge
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Declarations that an Enactment Inconsistent with Bill of Rights
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Proposed mandatory consideration of specific Māori representation
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

New Regime for Protected Disclosures (Whistleblower legislation)
Wednesday 29 June, 2022

Notices of requirement are relevant for resource consent applications
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Court gives guidance on consultation and decision-making process
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Cultural evidence and the continued draw of the overall judgment
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Fluoridation debate lifted from shoulders of local government
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Judicial review of Hamilton City Council's development contributions policy
Tuesday 5 October, 2021

Lease of Wanaka Airport set aside due to insufficient consultation
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

What if an abatement notice requires you to breach the Resource Management Act?
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

“No ‘wine-ing’ covenants” declined for a subdivision consent in Gibbston Valley
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

From car parking fine to judicial review of a council’s code of conduct
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

Councils remain liable for compliance of contractors with the RMA
Thursday 18 March, 2021

Could companies be liable to the public for the harm caused by their emissions?
Tuesday 10 March, 2020

Avoiding double penalties when sentencing a company and director
Thursday 23 April, 2020

Can an easement be granted over an esplanade reserve for a commercial activity?
Thursday 12 December, 2019

How can you identify the subject of an anonymous defamatory statement?
Thursday 10 October, 2019

Australian defamation decision raises risk for public Facebook pages
Wednesday 31 July, 2019

Local authority requiring monetary contributions on designations
Thursday 20 June, 2019

Bella Vista: MBIE Report highlights failure to perform statutory functions
Tuesday 9 April, 2019

Recent decision on "affected persons" highlights the importance of context
Wednesday 28 November, 2018

Court of Appeal recognises new public interest defence to defamation claims
Thursday 27 September, 2018

High Court finds Council liable in negligence for damage from fallen tree
Thursday 27 September, 2018
