1 Feb 2005, 09:00

A man requested access to information held by the Department of Conservation after complaints were made against him in connection with his activities as a boat operator. The Department provided him with a copy of most of the information but withheld the names of the informants. The Department purported to rely upon section 9(2)(a) of the Official Information Act 1982 (“OIA”) which allows for official information to be withheld where it is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons.

TRANSFER OF COMPLAINT FROM OMBUDSMEN

The man complained to the Ombudsmen about the Department's decision to withhold the names of the people who had lodged complaints against him. The Ombudsmen transferred the complaint to the Privacy Commissioner because the information that was withheld was “personal information” about the man and therefore needed to be considered under the Privacy Act 1993 (“the Act”).

There were initially some confusions about the withholding grounds on which the Departmnet was relying. During the investigation, however, it became apparent that the Department was relying on section 27(1)(c) to refuse access to the information. Section 27(1)(c) provides a reason for refusal if making the information available 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.

PRINCIPLE 6: ACCESS

Under information privacy principle 6, individuals have the right to access personal information about themselves held by an agency. This right is subject to limited reasons for refusing a request. In this case, the Department sought to withhold the identities of the informants. It has been the consistent view of this Office and the Human Rights Review Tribunal that the identity of an informant is personal information about the person informed against.

SECTION 27(1)(C)

The Department's functions include administering the Conservation Act 1987 and the Marine Mammals Protection Regulations 1992. When carrying out those functions, the Department obtains information about individuals whose activities might be contrary to those laws.

The Department relies to a certain extent on individuals volunteering information about possible offences in order to obtain relevant information. I was satisfied that the Department's ability to detect, investigate and prosecute offences, or to prevent them, would be prejudiced if the flow of information were to cease or be diminished. If the Department divulged the identity of the people who gave information of this kind, not only those informants but also other potential informants might be less willing to supply similar information to the Department in the future. This would be likely to prejudice its ability to enforce the law which it administers.

It was therefore my opinion that section 27(1)(c) of the Act provided the Department with a proper basis to withhold the identity of the individuals who gave information about the man, as I was satisfied that disclosure of the information would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law. It was therefore my opinion that the Department had not breached principle 6 of the Act.

March 2005

Indexing terms: Access to personal information – Department of Conservation – Refusal – Informants' identities – Releasing identities of complainants likely to “prejudice the maintenance of the law” – Privacy Act 1993, s 27(1)(c) – Information privacy principle 6.