Request for sites of rain recording stations in Tararua ranges—concern about vandalism and prejudice to measures protecting health or safety of members of the public—s 7(2)(d) did not apply
The requester asked the Chief Ombudsman to investigate and review under LGOIMA, the decision of the Wellington Regional Council not to make available:
-
a copy of the site plans and other information concerning the location of rain recording stations in the Tararua ranges; and
-
maps showing the approximate locations of other rain recording stations which the Council had installed elsewhere in the region for flood control information.
In declining to release the information, the Council relied on section 7(2)(d) of LGOIMA which provides good reason for withholding information if the withholding is necessary to avoid prejudice to measures protecting the health or safety of members of the public. In support of its decision, the Council explained that the stations are part of its early flood warning system and they are therefore important public health and safety measures. The stations are remote controlled and have their batteries replaced approximately every two months. The recordings are read Monday to Friday and if the stations were to be damaged over the weekend the damage would not be noted until the following Monday morning. The Council’s concern appeared to be that if it were generally known where the stations were located, the risk of vandalism would increase and this would ‘prejudice measures protecting the health or safety of members of the public’.
The Council was particularly concerned about releasing the information to the requester. It did not understand why she wanted the information and believed she may have wished to remove the stations. However, it said it would be happy to release the information at issue to environmentalists or to someone who could show good reason for wanting the information.
The Chief Ombudsman formed the view that section 7(2)(d) did not provide good reason to withhold the information requested. He accepted that the stations were ‘measures protecting the health or safety of members of the public’, but he did not accept that release of the information would result in prejudice to those measures.
While the requester admitted that some time earlier she had removed a marker that she considered was leading people off the beaten track and into an area where they could get lost, she also advised that she had received similar information from other Councils. The Chief Ombudsman consulted another Council and it advised that information regarding the location of its stations was freely available. That Council also advised that of all the stations under its control, only about one a year was damaged and this was generally by hunters using the station for target practice.
The Chief Ombudsman concluded that disclosure of the information to the requester was not likely to result in vandalism to the stations either by the requester or by any other person. He therefore formed the opinion that section 7(2)(d) did not provide good reason to withhold the information requested. The Council accepted this view and released the information.
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.