Abstract:
The Official Information Act 1982 (the OIA), which governs the right of New Zealand people to access information, does not apply to Parliament. This paper questions whether it is time to extend the OIA to Parliament in light of recent media coverage about members’ expenses, parliamentary actors and academics advocating a change, and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (UK) (the FOIA). The conclusion reached is that there is no simple answer due to the different institutions operating within the parliamentary system. It is the contention of this paper that the justifications and objections to an extension of the OIA have different relevance according to the institution examined. Ultimately, this paper submits that the question requires detailed consideration according to the institutions included and the purpose of change, and therefore it is not a simple reform.
The object of this paper is to canvass the justifications and objections to an extension of the OIA to Parliament. The first justification presented stems from the original drivers of the OIA, namely responsible government, participation and accountability. The second justification draws on the role of Parliament under the mixed member proportional electoral system (MMP), and the third derives from legislative ethics. There are three objections examined. The first objection is that there is no need for an extension of the OIA based on current practice. The second objection asserts that an extension is constitutionally inappropriate, and the third objection argues privacy will infringed if the OIA covers Parliament. The validity of these arguments is analysed according to specific institutions, a comparison with the FOIA regime and possible alternatives to an extension of the OIA.
