Police Minister Chris Hipkins said there was "nothing new" in the files yet his office interacted with police over the document across seven working days. Photo / File
Police Minister Chris Hipkins said there was "nothing new" in the files yet his office interacted with police over the document across seven working days. Photo / File
The release of the police investigation file into the lockdown caused by a bureaucrat's error was held up in the ministerial office of Chris Hipkins whose staff raised questions about what was to be made public.
Police have been told off before over delays to Official Information Act requests broughtabout through checking with its Minister.
New documents show there were seven working days of interaction between police headquarters and the Beehive before the release of the police file of the investigation into the women said to have sparked the Northland lockdown.
That seven days of interaction with Hipkins' office is in contrast to the Minister's reaction when the news broke. At the time he said: "There's nothing new in the report. This was all made public at the time."
The Herald revealed last October's Northland lockdown came after a public servant's clerical error approving travel documents for the women who travelled to Northland and then one tested positive for Covid-19.
Despite suggestions the women had provided false information to get travel documents, the police inquiry found no cause to charge the women. The OIA material also showed police had debunked claims the women were prostitutes and gang-affiliated.
Hipkins was squarely in the middle of the issue as Minister of Police but he was also the Minister for Covid-19 at the time the lockdown happened.
When it comes to OIA best practice, Hipkins again has a lead role as Minister for the Public Service Commission which the Chief Ombudsman says has "a role in OIA leadership and oversight" across those governed by the law.
Police headquarters have told the Herald that Hipkins was given advance warning of the 700-page lockdown OIA because it would be of media interest. His office received it on August 25 and last communicated with police headquarters on it seven working days later.
Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier told police in May: "Where possible, decisions should be notified to the Minister at the same time as they are communicated to the requester.
"However, in some cases a short period of advance notice may be required to enable the Minister to be properly briefed so that they are able to respond appropriately to enquiries and legitimate scrutiny."
Boshier said that a blanket period of three days notice was likely to be "unreasonable".
Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier. Photo / File
The same instruction and attitude was reflected by Boshier in an extensive report made public this month in which public agencies were told that "no surprises" notice of OIA releases to Ministerial offices needed to happen at the same time, or shortly before, the information was provided to the public.
The instruction follows years of concerns by OIA practitioners that the Beehive could influence the release of information when the law says it should be provided as soon as possible.
In the case of the OIA on the Northland lockdown, there was not only notification to Hipkins' office of the OIA but a staff member there provided a view on the release which has been withheld from release. Police have said the reason for keeping the Minister's office advice secret was to protect "free and frank expression of opinions" - a section of the Act intended to allow advice to be provided freely.
The communication from the Minister's office to police appeared more like consultation as it led to Hipkins' office writing back to police with "free and frank advice".
That input led to police headquarters writing again to Hipkins' office seven days after it had originally provided the OIA material with comments again withheld to prevent "free and frank advice". In response, the Minister's office wrote back saying there was "nothing further from the office on this one".
A spokeswoman for the Minister's office rejected the premise of a seven day delay at Hipkins' office even though the OIA showed the initial email interaction on August 25 and the last email - "nothing further" - came on September 2.
She said the office "provided all feedback" on August 31 and "did not seek or have any further input" from that point. The further communication on September 2 "was in response to a clarification sought", she said.
The spokeswoman said the Minister's office considered it spent four days with the OIA - longer than the 72 hours for "no surprises" notification - because there was so much material released.
Police checking cars heading to Northland. Photo/ Tania Whyte
A spokeswoman for police acknowledged the OIA response was delayed although "the amount of time this response spent at Minister's office did not contribute significantly to this delay".
The Herald sought the information in March and was told it would be provided by May 6 so it was almost four months late when it went to the Minister's office.
Researcher Mark Hanna set up a website to monitor the responses to OIA requests and found police pushed or broke the boundaries of the law on when responses were due. Hanna has used the OIA to obtain policy documents for the policepolicy.nz website he set up with friend Dillon Pentz after Kaoss Price was shot and killed by police earlier this year.
Price said he believed the sign-off procedure was a "large contributor" to delayed responses. He said he had often seen police explain that responses had been prepared but not sent because the "sign off process … can sometimes take weeks".
In a recent response, Hanna was told by police 98 per cent of OIA responses did not go to the Minister and those which did often did so for one day or less.
Police were told off by the Office of the Ombudsman in June because of a practice of providing three days "advance notice" to the Minister of Police for information releases that would have "high organisational impact".
The Chief Ombudsman found that advance warning proper to allow Ministers prepare for possible public discussion, the case in question did not involve complicated or large quantities of information. In that case, the Minister would not have needed much time to be properly briefed.
