The complainant asked me to investigate the refusal of the Department of Social Welfare to allow him access to his file in its entirety. The Department had provided the complainant with access to his file but did not allow him to see the original version of some of the pages. Instead the complainant was provided with a typed copy of one page and a photocopy of another page which omitted identifying information about the person who had provided the information in these documents.

In deleting the identifying information the Department advised the complainant that "... the identity of an informant will not be disclosed as the information was conveyed to the New Zealand Income Support Service on the understanding that the informant's identity would be kept in confidence, and the Service relies on such information to comply with the law in benefit information."

I considered the Department's concerns in the light of the relevant provisions of the Privacy Act. I noted that principle 6 of the Act provided the complainant with a right of access to personal information. The identity of a person who provides information about another person is considered to be personal information about that other person. However, this right of access to personal information is subject to a number of reasons which justify a refusal to provide access to information. These reasons are set out in sections 27, 28 and 29 of the Act.

I considered that section 27(1)(c) of the Act was relevant to the Department's concern. This section provides that an agency with a reason to refuse to disclose information under Principle 6 if the disclosure of the information would be likely:

"to prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences and the right to a fair trial."

I noted that the Department in administering the law relating to benefits relied on the receipt of information from sources which understand that their identity will remain confidential. The receipt of such information is obviously crucial to the detection of fraud in respect of benefits and it is part of the function of the Department to investigate and detect fraudulent claims. I accepted that if the Department released the identity of the informants in this case then, in future, these informants and other potential informants would be reluctant to supply information. If the flow of information from confidential sources were to cease or to be diminished then the Department would quite clearly be prejudiced in its role of preventing, investigating and detecting offences.

For these reasons I considered that section 27(1)(c) provided the Department with good reason to restrict the complainant's access to his file. I emphasised that this finding was not related to the accuracy or otherwise of the information the informant had provided. I noted that the complainant had been given full access to all information provided by the informants and advised him of his right to request correction of this information.

Refusal of access to information - informant - Information Privacy Principles 6 - section 27(1)(c) Privacy Act

Access to personal information - Department of Social Welfare - Refusal - Informant identity - Releasing informant identity would be likely to "prejudice the maintenance of the law" - Privacy Act 1993, s 27(1)(c) - Information privacy principle 6