Request for information about producer board reforms—premature disclosure of some of the information would be likely to damage seriously the economic interests of New Zealand in relation to overseas trade agreements—s 6(e)(vi)—deletions from documents not feasible therefore some documents withheld in full
The requester sought any work, material, studies, papers or reports to the Government held by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) relating to the impact of reform or deregulation of producer boards on the management of quota markets.
Much of the information was withheld in reliance upon section 6 of the OIA, and in particular section 6(e)(vi). The major thrust of the investigation and review therefore focused on the essential ingredients required to satisfy the test for withholding information under that provision.
Section 6(e)(vi) provides good reason to withhold official information if the making available of that information would be likely ‘to damage seriously the economy of New Zealand by disclosing prematurely decisions to change or continue Government economic or financial policies relating to the entering into of overseas trade agreements’.
At the time the request was made, final decisions on the nature and timing of producer board reform had not been made and the documents relevant to the request canvassed various options available to the government. MFAT therefore believed that premature disclosure of the particular information at issue would be likely to damage seriously the economic interests of New Zealand within the meaning of section 6(e)(vi). In support of this view, it drew attention to the potential effects on New Zealand’s international trading relationships and the likely reactions of other countries associated with such trading relationships if the information were disclosed before any decision had been taken.
Given the nature of the information at issue, it was appropriate to consult the Minister of International Trade about the likely effects of disclosure of the information. Having regard to the Minister’s comments and to the explanations provided by MFAT about overseas trade agreements and relationships, it was accepted that disclosure of the information at issue ‘would be likely’ to result in the prejudice envisaged by section 6(e)(vi).
Many of the documents containing that information were written in a discursive style, and the particular information at issue was bound up in other text that was not itself withholdable. The general approach in such cases is to edit the individual documents or sections of documents in order to delete the items of information that are considered withholdable. This approach is consistent with the fact that the OIA deals with ‘information’ and not ‘documents’. However, in the particular circumstances such a course was not practicable, as the deletions would have rendered the remaining text unintelligible. A global approach was therefore taken towards the withholding of some individual documents and substantial sections of other documents having regard to the general subject matter which it was necessary to protect in terms of section 6(e)(vi).
Notwithstanding the withholding described above, a significant quantity of information within the scope of the request was released to the requester.
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.