Our ref 464786 (Complaint ground: 464817)

Contact Nick Kennedy

7 March 2018

Ms Nikki MacDonald
Reporter
The Dominion Post

By email:
nikki.macdonald@dompost.co.nz

Dear Ms MacDonald

Official Information Act investigation

Nikki Macdonald of the Dominion Post
Request for information relating to charging for access to National Parks and the
Tongariro Alpine Crossing
I am writing concerning your complaint about the Department of Conservation’s decision on your
request for official information.
You have refined your complaint to look particularly at the Department’s decision to redact
sections of documents requested due to it considering them to be ‘out of scope’. You consider
that your request was for full documents, not just the specific parts which relate to the charging
for access to National Parks and the Tongariro Crossing. I have been advised that you have already
made a subsequent request to the Department seeking the full documents, but that you are
wanting my input on the original ‘out of scope’ decision.
In the circumstances, I do not consider that further investigation is necessary into the
Department’s specific decision that you have complained about. However, I do appreciate your
concerns about the general practice of redacting information on the basis that it is ‘out of scope’. I
have today written to the Director-General of Conservation to clarify how I consider agencies
should approach issues like this. I have set out in the appendix to this letter the relevant excerpt
of my clarification to the Department.
In these circumstances, I have discontinued my investigation, as further investigation seems
unnecessary (section 17(1)(f) of the Ombudsmen Act 1975 refers).
If you have any further questions, please contact Nick Kennedy on 04 462 7858.

Yours sincerely

Leo Donnelly
Ombudsman
Office of the Ombudsman | Tari o te Kaitiaki Mana Tangata

Appendix 1. Extract from my letter to the Department

In her request for official information, Ms MacDonald sought:
1. Any 2015, 2016 or 2017 reports, evaluations, briefing documents, memos etc
investigating, assessing or evaluating the feasibility and/or merits of charging to
walk the Tongariro Crossing. (Or of charging indirectly, by restricting access and
charging through transport providers)
2. Any 2015, 2016 or 2017 reports, evaluations, briefing documents, memos etc
investigating, assessing or evaluating the feasibility and/or merits of charging for
access to national parks.
3. Any briefings to the minister or correspondence with the minister’s office
regarding the possibility of charging for either national park entry or to walk the
Tongariro Crossing
The Department, when releasing information to Ms MacDonald, redacted parts of documents on
the basis that it was ‘out of scope’ for the request. Having considered the un-redacted documents,
I accept that the ‘out of scope’ information does not appear to relate to the question of charging
for access to national parks, or similar topics identified in the request.
I consider that where a requester has specified in their request that they are seeking documents,
such as reports or memos, an agency should consider release of the full document, rather than
just the parts of the documents which are directly related to the topic identified in the request. To
take the latter approach runs the risk of making a narrowed assumption of what the requester is
seeking, when this is not necessarily the case. This is evident in the circumstances of this
complaint where Ms MacDonald subsequently made a second request to the Department for the
full documents at issue for her first request.
When requesting information from agencies, requesters often have to make assumptions about
how that particular agency works and holds information. Agencies should therefore avoid
adopting a narrow interpretation of a request. This is supported by the purposes of the OIA found
in section 4, and the principle of availability in section 5.
I appreciate that, in some cases, it may be administratively preferable to interpret a request in
such a way, and that the requester may also be in favour of such an approach to expedite the
process. In such instances, however, it would be more appropriate to consult with the requester
to discuss what they are actually seeking, and how best this information can be provided. If a
requester confirms that they are only seeking parts of the documents on a particular topic then
you would be free to proceed on this basis. This extra step mitigates the risk of a decision not
reflecting what the requester is seeking, while also ensuring that an agency does not undertake
unnecessary work.

Page 2