1 Feb 2007, 09:00

The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) had received an allegation that, if correct, would have an impact on a woman's benefit. When she became aware of this, she requested access to details of the allegation and of the person who made it. Specifically she requested the date and time of the allegation, the person's name and gender, the area the person lived in and the exact details of what was alleged. MSD provided her with a copy of the investigation file but withheld the requested details under section 27(1)(c) of the Privacy Act.

I reviewed the Ministry's decision in light of the relevant provisions of the Privacy Act. Principle 6 provides individuals with a right of access to personal information held about them. However, this right is subject to the reasons to refuse access set out in sections 27- 29. I agreed that section 27(1)(c) of the Act was relevant here. This provides that an agency may refuse access to information if providing it would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation and detection of offences.

MSD has statutory functions to maintain the law in relation to benefits, including detecting and investigating fraud. In doing so, it relies on the receipt of information from members of the public who understand that their identity will remain confidential. Information from members of the public can be crucial to the detection of fraud in respect of benefits. If these informants could be identified by those who are the subject of their allegations, this would become widely known. There would then be a substantial risk that people would be deterred from contacting MSD about possible benefit fraud. If these sources of information dried up, this would hinder MSD's ability to maintain the law.

However, although it is important to protect the interests of informants and to ensure a continued supply of “tip offs”, this must be reconciled with the interests of a person who is placed under investigation as a result of such an allegation. An individual may need reasonable access to information on a departmental file so they can properly challenge allegations made against them. I took this into account in my decision.

In this case, I considered that section 27(1)(c) provided good reason for the Ministry to withhold the further details that the complainant had requested. Those details were specific and there was a real risk that she would be able to identify the informant if they were provided to her. There was also no indication that she was unable to respond properly to the allegations because she had not received the information. She had been given enough information about the nature of the allegations for her to defend herself.

I therefore formed the final opinion that there was no interference with the woman's privacy.

March 2007

Access to personal information - Ministry of Social Development – refusal – informant identity – prejudice to the maintenance of the law – Privacy Act 1993, principle 6, section 27(1)(c)