Request for official information specifically held by Ministry of Education—Ministry transferred request to Minister of Education on the basis that the information was more closely connected to the functions of that Minister—request specifically for information held by Secretary and Ministry officials—Ministry advised Chief Ombudsman that decision to transfer based on a directive that all media requests should be transferred to Minister for reply—not sufficient grounds for transfer under s 14(b)(ii)—complaint sustained—Ministry reviewed its processes for transferring requests
A requester wrote to the Ministry of Education seeking certain information held by the Secretary for Education or officials in the Ministry regarding certain named organisations and individuals connected to groups that had received funding as part of the public health component of the Government’s comprehensive tobacco control programme. When making his request, the complainant explained it was directed specifically at the Secretary for Education and officials in the Ministry. He stated that ‘officials’ included:
..officials who report directly to [the Secretary] and officials who report directly to officials who report directly to [the Secretary] and any officials in [the] Ministry…who have been connected in any way since the 1999 General Election with the Government’s comprehensive tobacco control programme funded by the Ministry of Health.
The requester received a letter from the Minister of Education’s office advising that his request had been transferred to the Minister of Education under section 14(b)(ii) of the OIA.
The requester complained that the decision to transfer his request was not justified under the OIA. He argued that section 14 could not apply because the information he requested was specifically ‘limited to information held by [the] Ministry and it is not possible that [the Secretary] believes it to be more closely connected to the functions of the Minister of Education’. He therefore asked the Chief Ombudsman to investigate this decision.
The Chief Ombudsman wrote to the Ministry of Education advising of his intention to investigate the matter. He advised that his jurisdiction under the OIA did not extend to investigating an agency’s decision to transfer a request for official information. However, he explained that he did have jurisdiction under the Ombudsmen Act to investigate whether an agency’s decision to transfer a request was reasonable. The Chief Ombudsman asked the Ministry for a report explaining:
-
why the requested information was considered to be more closely connected with the functions of the Minister of Education rather than the functions of the Ministry of Education; and
-
why it was considered necessary to transfer the request given it was specifically directed at the Secretary for Education and officials in the Ministry of Education.
In response, the Ministry advised that the decision to transfer the request to the Minister of Education was based on a past directive from that Minister’s office that all requests for official information made by the media should be transferred to him. At the time the Ministry received the request, it said it believed that the requester was a communications consultant and Ministry staff had contacted the Minister’s office to query whether this qualified the requester as a member of the media for the purposes of transfer of the request. The Ministry said it was advised that it did. However, the Ministry subsequently discovered that the requester’s circumstances were such that the directive did not actually apply and the transfer should not have occurred. In any event, the Ministry advised that it did not hold any official information relevant to the request.
The Chief Ombudsman sought a copy of the directive the Ministry relied upon when making its original decision, but was advised that staff had been unable to locate it.
The Chief Ombudsman then referred back to the precise wording of the request. He noted that, although the complainant had explained that his request related to organisations that had received funding as part of the public health component of the Government’s comprehensive tobacco control programme, he had also stated that his purpose in making the request was to obtain official information that the Ministry of Education held (if any) regarding those named organisations and individuals connected to them. Further, when making his request, the complainant had also explained that his request was specifically directed at the Secretary for Education and Ministry officials.
The fact that an official information request has been made by a member of the media does not, of itself, provide grounds to transfer that request under section 14. Further, given the wording of the request, in particular the fact that it was directed specifically at the Secretary for Education and officials in the Ministry of Education, the Chief Ombudsman was unable to see any basis for the view that the information requested was more closely connected with the functions of another department or Minister of the Crown. It was therefore the Chief Ombudsman’s view that the decision to transfer the request to the Minister of Education pursuant to section 14(b)(ii) was incorrect and the complaint was sustained.
The Ministry advised that it had since revised its processes for transferring requests and it had reminded its staff of the requirements for transfer under section 14. In these circumstances, the Chief Ombudsman decided not to make any formal recommendations.
However, given the Ministry’s further advice that it did not hold any official information relevant to the request, it was apparent to the Chief Ombudsman that the Ministry was effectively refusing the request on this basis. Therefore, the Chief Ombudsman wrote to the requester advising that, if he was dissatisfied with this decision made by the Ministry to refuse his request, it was open to him to ask the Chief Ombudsman to investigate that refusal under the OIA. In the absence of a response from the requester, the Chief Ombudsman assumed that he did not wish to take this matter any further.
This case note is published under the authority of the Ombudsmen Rules 1989 opens page in this tab. It sets out an Ombudsman’s view on the facts of a particular case. It should not be taken as establishing any legal precedent that would bind an Ombudsman in future.