Opposition party requested transcripts of Prime Minister’s press conferences—refused—distinction between information imparted by the Prime Minister in her official capacity and information imparted by her in her capacity as Leader of the Labour Party—the former is ‘official information’ but the latter is not—s 2(1)—Prime Minister concerned that release of official information would inhibit free and frank comments to accredited member of the press—only accredited media representatives attend these press conferences but not restricted in their reporting—no good reason under the OIA for refusal
The Director of Strategy for an opposition party wrote to the Prime Minister requesting copies of transcripts of her Monday press conferences which are held in the Beehive Theatrette.
This request was refused under section 18(d) of the OIA on the basis that the information is made available following the conclusion of the Monday press conferences by way of the media reports. However, the requester considered this fell well short of providing the complete transcripts of those press conferences and asked the Chief Ombudsman to investigate the decision.
The Chief Ombudsman asked the Prime Minister for a copy of the transcripts and a report explaining the reasons for her refusal.
In response, the Prime Minister questioned whether the information requested actually constituted ‘official information’ for the purposes of the OIA, particularly when there was no requirement on the Prime Minister to hold press conferences and it was therefore not an ‘official duty’ for her to make herself available to the media. Further, many of the questions asked by the media were general and related to her position of Leader of the Labour Party.
The Chief Ombudsman acknowledged that there was no requirement for the Prime Minister to hold press conferences and it was entirely her choice as to the extent to which she made herself available to the media. The Chief Ombudsman was therefore willing to accept that holding press conferences was not an ‘official duty’ of the Prime Minister. However, while it may not be a requirement for the Prime Minister to hold press conferences, it was the Chief Ombudsman’s understanding that when she did attend them, she did so in her capacity as Prime Minister with a view to discussing, for the most part, government business. In these circumstances, it was the Chief Ombudsman’s view that any transcript which recorded information imparted by the Prime Minister in her official capacity, was official information. Any request for that information must be considered in accordance with the requirements of the OIA.
However, after considering the content of the transcripts, the Chief Ombudsman noted that some of the information imparted at the press conferences by the Prime Minister was done so in her capacity as Leader of the Labour Party. The Chief Ombudsman agreed that such information did not fall within the definition of ‘official information’ under the OIA. Any decision regarding a request for the release of that information would therefore not be governed by the OIA’s requirements.
The Chief Ombudsman then considered the substantive concerns with providing the official information contained in the transcripts. The Chief Ombudsman was again referred to the fact that there is no requirement for a Prime Minister to hold press conferences and it was entirely her choice to give media representatives an ‘oral briefing’ on current issues. It was explained that these press conferences are ‘restricted to accredited media representatives in order to ensure that there is some professional accountability for the way in which the information is given or used’. If the transcripts of the Prime Minister’s press conferences were freely available under the OIA, then the concern was that this would effectively render nugatory the restriction that only accredited media representatives can attend.
The Chief Ombudsman met with the Prime Minister and her staff to discuss these concerns further. As a result, it was the Chief Ombudsman’s understanding that the press conference format allowed the Prime Minister to be more free and frank in her comments and immediate response to oral questions than would be the case if she simply issued written press statements. While the Prime Minister was prepared to be free and frank with accredited media representatives who work within accepted practices, she indicated that she may not be prepared to be so free and frank with a wider audience. Release of the transcripts would therefore be likely to restrict her discussion of issues or possibly even result in press conferences no longer being held.
The Chief Ombudsman acknowledged these concerns. However, he noted that no restrictions are placed on what the media are able to report from such press conferences and all accredited media representatives are welcome to attend. Therefore, there seemed to be nothing to stop an accredited media representative from making available to third parties (such as the complainant) copies of the transcripts of the press conferences.
It was the Chief Ombudsman’s view that the information contained in the transcripts of the press conferences was official information held by the Prime Minister in her official capacity (except where the information related to her separate role of Leader of the Labour Party), and there was no reason under the OIA to withhold it.
The Chief Ombudsman recommended that the Prime Minister make available to the complainant copies of the official information contained in the transcripts of the press conferences. Any information that was not official information because it related solely to her role as Leader of the Labour Party could be deleted. Identifying this particular information in the transcripts was, in the Chief Ombudsman’s opinion, primarily a matter of fact and easily done.
Comment
The original request in this case was for the transcripts to be provided to the requester on an ‘on-going basis, without the necessity of lodging an OIA request on each occasion’. However, the OIA only applies to information that is ‘held’ by the Minister, department or organisation, and does not apply to information that has not yet been created. Therefore, the OIA would not apply to requests for information to be provided at some future time when that information has been created.
While it is open to a Minister, department or organisation to choose to treat such a request as a request under the OIA, and to make decisions about release at regular intervals when information covered by the request has been generated, there is no obligation under the OIA to do so.
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.