Request for official information about school dental data—Health New Zealand refused request under section 18(f) on the basis it would require substantial collation and research—Chief Ombudsman was not satisfied that section 18(f) applied—Information was routinely available under the (former) district health board system—Chief Ombudsman identified concerns with Health New Zealand’s approach to multi-district requests
Background
A member of the public complained to the Chief Ombudsman about Health New Zealand’s (HNZ) decision to refuse their request for official information about school dental data.
The request was made on 22 July 2023. It sought statistical data for five-year-olds and Year 8 students, including their ethnicity, DMFT (decayed, missing or filled teeth) score, and fluoridation status. The requester wanted information from former district health board (DHB) areas that they named, for varying years between 2017 and 2022.
On 17 August 2023, HNZ refused the request under section 18(d) of the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) on the basis that statistical information was publicly available on the Ministry of Health website. The same day, the requester contacted HNZ, as they were concerned that the information on the Ministry website only provided high-level data, whereas their request specifically sought more detailed statistical information.
HNZ treated the requester’s response as a new OIA request. On 14 September 2023, HNZ refused the request under section 18(f) of the OIA on the basis the information ‘cannot be made available without substantial collation or research’. It stated:
"…data across multiple districts and multiple years requires significant effort to collate, as the data is held in different systems for different districts and there is no consistent methodology to ensure the same accurate data is able to be extracted by each district. It would appear that you have requested similar data from individual former District Health Boards in the past and some of them were able to provide the requested data. The data for the 20 different districts is not held centrally and so the completion of your request is unfortunately not possible."
The requester complained about HNZ’s decision to refuse their request under section 18(f) of the OIA. They stated that they had been conducting research on dental health in fluoridated and unfluoridated communities for several years. From 2006 onwards, they were was routinely able to access the information from individual DHBs. The requester was concerned that the amalgamation of the DHBs had reduced their access to the information.
Investigation
HNZ explained to the Ombudsman that it was a relatively new organisation at the time of the request, having formed in July 2022 following the amalgamation of 20 DHBs. Under the DHB system, different DHBs had different systems for managing and storing Community Oral Health Service (COHS) data.
Previously, DHBs also independently responded to OIA requests. HNZ advised that following the amalgamation of the DHBs, regional capacity to process OIA requests had largely disappeared. HNZ now centralises its management of requests that require the collation of information from different districts. Under the new system, an advisor contacts a regional ‘connector’ to identify the relevant district subject matter expert (SME). The advisor then works with the SME to manage the request. This can be a time-consuming process, often generating hundreds of emails.
At the time of the OIA request, the data that was being sought was not stored at a national level. Many districts used a single IT system to store COHS data, but not all districts used the same version of the IT system. Additionally, a small number of districts still used some paper records.
Of the districts that used the IT system, some had capacity to run their own computer codes to retrieve the requested information, but others did not. Although some districts might have been able to quickly extract the data, it would still need to be reviewed by a subject matter expert for accuracy. For districts with paper records, individual patient records would need to be manually reviewed to collate the information.
HNZ estimated that each district would take about four hours to pull the initial dataset together, four hours for data validation, and an additional two hours to finalise the result. This would need to be replicated for each of the 13 former DHB areas within the scope of the request, for a total of approximately 130 hours across the organisation, during which time staff working on the request would not be working on their other duties. HNZ’s estimate did not include the time taken for each district to liaise with various analysts and business units. It later increased its estimate to do the work to about 200 hours.
HNZ advised that before refusing the request, it considered whether alternatives to refusal would enable it to meet the request. These alternatives included consulting the requester to narrow the scope of the request, imposing a charge for the information, and extending the timeframe for response. This is covered in sections 18A and 18B of the OIA.
HNZ concluded that none of those options would enable the request to be met, due to the time required to provide the level of granularity the requester sought.
Outcome
Section 18(f) of the OIA provides that a request may be refused if ‘the information requested cannot be made available without substantial collation or research’.
‘Research’ means finding the information and ‘collation’ means bringing it together. This can include tasks like identifying the requested information, determining whether the requested information is held, and searching for, retrieving or extracting the requested information. Collation and research does not include tasks that relate to data checking or decision making on the withholding or release of information.
Refusing a request on the grounds of substantial collation or research is a last resort, and only done if the other mechanisms in the legislation do not provide a reasonable basis for managing an administratively challenging request.
In the absence of a sampling exercise or other evidence about what responding to the request entailed, the Ombudsman was not persuaded by HNZ’s estimate of the time it would take to retrieve the requested information. Additionally, the Ombudsman was not satisfied that all activities described by HNZ could be defined as collation or research. It seemed that some of the activities related to quality assurance rather than collation or research. The Ombudsman noted that HNZ only needed to take reasonable steps to ensure the information was accurate and complete. HNZ could provide the requester with the extracted information and, if necessary, include a contextual statement about the limitations of its accuracy and completeness.
The Ombudsman observed that HNZ’s approach to multi-district requests such as the requester’s may have reduced the availability of official information, particularly given the requester had previously been able to obtain the same information under the DHB system. The Ombudsman commented that the situation seemed at odds with the purpose in section 4 of the OIA ‘to increase progressively the availability of official information to the people of New Zealand’. Such information was now harder to get than it had been under the DHB system.
When an agency amalgamates or grows, it should ensure that its OIA function remains fit for purpose and is scaled appropriately, so that its legal obligations under the OIA are able to be met as core business. The Ombudsman considered that in general, official information should be at least as available from HNZ as it was from the DHBs. Centralisation should not create barriers to the collation of information that did not previously exist. The Ombudsman was concerned by HNZ’s comments that regional capacity to process OIA requests was now lacking. He said the legal obligations regarding recordkeeping and responding to official information requests had not changed, and HNZ must arrange and resource itself appropriately to ensure it is able to meet its OIA obligations.
The Ombudsman considered it was unreasonable for HNZ to refuse the request under section 18(f) when the information was previously routinely made available to the requester under the DHB system. He formed the final opinion that HNZ was not entitled to refuse the request under section 18(f).
The Ombudsman recommended that HNZ:
- reconsider its decision on the request without delay;
- review its process for multi-district requests of this nature, to ensure ongoing access to official information that was previously available under the DHB system; and
- report back to the Ombudsman within three months, with the outcome of the review.
The Ombudsman also took the step of notifying the Chief Archivist of his final opinion, pursuant to section 28(6) of the OIA.
HNZ accepted the recommendations. HNZ’s review of its process for multi-district requests is currently underway.
This case note is published under the authority of the Ombudsmen Rules 1989. 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.
Last updated: