New guidance on publicly available official information

New guidance on publicly available official information
Thursday 3 May, 2018
The Ombudsman has recently released a useful guide relating to the power not to provide official information that is or soon will be publicly available. This power recognises that requesters should be able to get publicly available information themselves, without having to use LGOIMA. However, it shouldn’t be used in ways which undermine the principle of increasing the availability of official information.
The guide sets out the key considerations that local authorities must address before relying on this power of refusal. In relation to information that is already publicly available, local authorities should consider factors such as whether the requester can reasonably access the information, taking into account factors such as distance and technology; and how difficult it would be for them to supply the information to the requester. For example, with regard to reasonable access to information, the fact that a requester would have to pay a commercial rate for information of commercial value does not mean that the information is not publicly available. However, if the cost of purchasing the information from a third party was patently excessive then it would not be considered publicly available, so a council would probably have to provide the information under LGOIMA.
Where the information will be publicly available soon, local authorities should also consider how soon the information will be available, whether the requester needs the information earlier, and whether there is any reason why the information can’t be made available before the planned publication date.
The guide is available here.
Please contact Megan Crocket if you require assistance with LGOIMA requests.
Related Articles

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

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