National Party health spokesman Dr Shane Reti. Photo / Bevan Conley
A government agency provided an “incomplete response” to an Official Information Act request about seismic risk at Tauranga Hospital, the Ombudsman has ruled.
National Party health spokesman Dr Shane Reti said it was “disappointing” that “the most important” information was omitted in the Bay of Plenty District Health Board’s response to his Official Information Act (OIA) request for its risk register.
However, Te Whatu Ora Hauora a Toi Bay of Plenty — formerly the district health board — says it was a “genuine misinterpretation of what was deemed the risk register” and has apologised to Reti.
Reti made an OIA request in December 2021 to all 20 former district health boards for a copy of their risk registers.
He received the Bay of Plenty DHB’s response in February last year that said the risk register was a database and could not be copied. The DHB attached a report out of the risk register showing risks rated at nine or above — the reporting threshold used for board and executive management.
The Bay of Plenty Times Weekend sighted the response, which says structural improvements were required to buildings 23 and 28 of Tauranga Hospital to meet earthquake safety standards.
Reti said in May he was leaked information with a “progress” column listed next to the risks. Next to building 23 and 28, it said the projects were on hold until funding became available and the Ministry of Health had been advised of this risk. This was noted in the register that month.
Because he had not received progress information in his original OIA response, he said he believed he had not received the full details of the risk register. He complained to the Ombudsman last year.
Speaking to the Bay of Plenty Times Weekend, Reti said, from his perspective, it was “particularly disappointing” because he had asked the DHB “important questions around seismic risk”.
In his opinion: “And they got caught.
Reti said, in his view: “The only way they got caught was because I had the document leaked to me, otherwise we would never have known that there was more information that they didn’t release to me.”
Reti said, in his opinion, withholding information was a “serious’' matter and the act was a “really important measure of democracy and accountability”.
He believed the missing information was “the most important” because it described the progress towards addressing the risks.
Reti said, in his view: “What clearly happened here is ... a complete abuse of that process and a breach of trust. And that puts democracy at risk, it puts our role as an Opposition to adequately critique the Government, it reduces that tool.”
Reti said if the progress information had been included in his original OIA response, it would have reassured him that progress was underway. If no progress had been, he would have put “further pressure” on the Government to provide resources.
The Ombudsman report — sighted by the Bay of Plenty Times Weekend — says it investigated the matter and concluded Te Whatu Ora’s response was “unreasonable”.
“The agency has acknowledged that it only provided a ‘basic report’ to you and that the full information contained in the register about the risks rated at nine or above was not provided,” the report addressed to Reti says.
“Accordingly, an incomplete response was provided to you.”
The report says Te Whatu Ora had not advised Reti that not all information held in the register pertaining to the risks rated nine or above had been provided, nor the reasons why.
“I suggest to Te Whatu Ora that an apology was due to you and this has been done.”
The Ombudsman recommended Te Whatu Ora remind its staff of the statutory obligations under the Official Information Act.
In the apology to Reti — also sighted by the Bay of Plenty Times Weekend — Te Whatu Ora acknowledged its failure to meet such obligations.
“On behalf of Te Whatu Ora Hauora a Toi Bay of Plenty, please accept my sincere apology for failing to provide you with all the information we had available when you first made your request and for not informing you of the reasons information was not released.”
The apology says Reti would be receiving “a full set of data for the risks provided in the report” of February 22, 2022. Reti confirmed he had received this.
Te Whatu Ora Hauora a Toi Bay Of Plenty governance and quality senior adviser Debbie Brown told the Bay of Plenty Times Weekend there was a “misunderstanding regarding the scope of the request” and a subsequent complaint was made.
“Once that was realised, Dr Reti was provided with additional information.
“It is unfortunate that Dr Reti feels we abused the system as this was a genuine misinterpretation of what was deemed the risk register. We have apologised to Dr Reti for this.”
When asked how the information was missed in the original response, Brown said the database that recorded risks was a “live document” and contained “many thousands of pieces of information” that were continuously updated.
“When a request for the risk register is made, a report is compiled from the database best reflecting the information which has been requested.”
This included the manual creation of columns to categorise the requested information. There was no standard format that pulled from the register on every occasion.
Brown said the nature of the database, the information provided and why was explained in the original OIA response.
“The risk register is a database hence it is not able to be copied. Instead, we have attached a report out of the risk register that shows those risks rated at nine or above — this is the reporting threshold used for board and executive management.”
Brown said it had done a lot of work to improve the risk register since April.
She said if the requester had contacted them dissatisfied with the initial response or asked for a further update on work being carried out on the risks identified in it, this would have been “duly considered” under the act at the time.
“Te Whatu Ora works hard to manage all OIA requests in good faith and in keeping with the principles of the act. If a requester is unhappy with a response, they have the right to seek review from the responder, or make a complaint to the Ombudsman.”
Brown said the Te Whatu Ora OIA team was providing training and guidance to districts to ensure “consistency and compliance” with its obligations under the act.
“Te Whatu Ora in Hauora a Toi Bay of Plenty will also be reiterating the need for specificity in OIA requests, regarding the intended scope of those requests. It is hoped this will help avoid ambiguity and the potential for misinterpretation in the future.”
The jury's marathon deliberations ran for two weeks.