Action Point 4: Strengthen Transparency Legislation
The Official Information Act (OIA) is 43 years old. The legislation is in urgent need of reform to bring it into line with international best practice.
A more level playing field doesn’t just mean reducing the power of well-connected outside interests. It also means boosting the voices of the public, and those without vested commercial interests. In a modern open democracy, all citizens have the right to access information that shapes public policy-making and the ability to participate in the decisions that affect us all.
The Official Information Act (the OIA) has a fundamental role to play in enhancing transparency and participation, since the law says its purpose includes making information available to the public to ‘enable their more effective participation in the making and administration of laws and policies’.
New lobbying regulations, including an online and publicly accessible register and a lobbying or integrity commission, would increase transparency and accountability around public policymaking. The OIA needs to be strengthened to support these measures and provide a ‘backstop’ as protection against those who will seek to circumvent any regulation of lobbying and conflicts of interests.
The OIA promotes transparency and public participation and helps expose political and policy decisions to public scrutiny by making it possible for people in New Zealand to request official government information. Anyone in the country can use the OIA to access information, including journalists, NGOs and researchers, who use it to scrutinise decision making and hold decisionmakers to account.
The OIA is 43 years old and is widely regarded as needing an overhaul due to:
- Withholding grounds that are too broad and result in excessive deletions from requested information.
- The fact that it does not apply to parliamentary institutions.
- Long delays by both government departments and the Ombudsmen.
- The absence of a framework for proactive publication obligations that would empower people to complain about failures to comply with them.
- The inability of the Ombudsmen to make binding orders that information should be disclosed, and to prosecute those who break the law means a new institution is needed to strengthen the operation of the law.
Only minor changes have been made to the OIA since it was enacted in 1982 and the legislation is no longer meeting international standards for best practice – not least because it does not regulate proactive disclosure of information. A major rewrite is long overdue and even the weaker step of a review has been promised by political parties but never achieved.
What we are asking for
- A public interest test needs to be added to Section 6 so that where the public interest in disclosure outweighs the need for confidentiality, the information is disclosed.
- In the rewritten OIA an additional part is needed to specify the types of information which need to be proactively released , subject to any justified withholding at the time the information is published (e.g. Cabinet papers, lists of ministerial briefings, government contracts).
- The OIA needs to be extended to cover the departments of parliament such as the Office of the Clerk and Office of the Speaker and Officers of Parliament (Ombudsman and Auditor-General).
- Aotearoa New Zealand needs to shift to having an Information Commissioner to oversee the implementation of the OIA with powers to issue orders to enforce the legislation.
What these measures will achieve
Proactive release of information
Proactively publishing more government information would improve participation and efficiency by reducing delays and the costs associated with processing OIA requests. Instead of requiring people to formally request key documents, important information would be automatically accessible, streamlining government operations and increasing public trust.
Inclusion of external policy advice in proactive release
Expanding the scope of proactively released information to include external (non-government) policy advice would provide greater clarity on who is influencing government decisions. Prompt disclosure, with redactions only where the public interest permits it, will enable others to be informed and provide alternative views before decisions are made. This will ensure more accountability in government policymaking, making it clear when decisions align with or contradict official advice.
Strengthened oversight by introducing an Information Commissioner.
Effective oversight of the OIA requires an independent authority with the power to enforce compliance and issue binding orders. Currently, the Ombudsman can only make recommendations and persuade agencies to release information, with limited jurisdiction over government ministers. Strengthening enforcement mechanisms would help ensure the law is applied consistently and fairly.
Expanded OIA coverage
For greater transparency and accountability, the OIA should be extended to cover parliamentary offices, including the Office of the Clerk and the Office of the Speaker as well as Officers of Parliament, such as the Ombudsman and Auditor-General. These entities play a significant role in government oversight and administration, yet their own decision-making processes remain outside the scope of the OIA.
Note: individual MPs who do not hold ministerial positions should remain exempt, as their role is to advocate for the public rather than make policy decisions. Ministers, in their government capacity, are already subject to the OIA.
Why action is needed
The Official Information Act (OIA) has been in place for 43 years and is in urgent need of a rewrite to align with international best practices. The Law Commission recommended this in 2012, in its report The Public’s Right to Know.
Recent media investigations into the OIA have highlighted several issues, including:
- Delays in responses, sometimes due to interference in the process. Responses often exceed the expected 20-day timeframe.
- Information being unjustifiably redacted.
- Complaints about OIA handling taking months to be resolved.
Despite calls for reform over the years, little progress has been made. Previous commitments to review the Act have not resulted in significant changes.
Public scrutiny of the OIA intensified in 2023 following concerns about withheld information in a high-profile case. The Ombudsman later found that key details had been improperly withheld, raising further questions about the Act’s effectiveness in ensuring transparency.
Political commitments were made in 2023 to review the legislation. However, as of 2025, no substantial action has been taken.
Journalists and researchers continue to report challenges in obtaining information from public agencies, citing delays and lack of meaningful responses. While OIA requests remain a tool for accessing information, the process can be slow and difficult, reinforcing concerns about the Act’s ability to uphold openness, transparency and accountability.
