OPINION: Imagine you misplaced a sock at house. Which of the following would you do?
Would you ask another person in your family the place it could be, or sit down at your laptop computer and Google “doable places of lacking socks”?
I believe Auckland Transport (AT) would do the latter, primarily based on a comedy of errors which raises questions over its dedication to statutory obligations around releasing official information.
In November 2019, I heard a few as soon as prime secret enterprise inside AT called Project Ridge, by which it, KiwiRail and Ports of Auckland explored creating a brand new joint entity taking higher management over Auckland’s government-owned rail community.
* We need to exercise our right to know about what the government is up to
* The Detail: Why New Zealand needs a media freedom committee
* The rail plan Auckland Transport spent two years trying to keep secret
Time, senior executives and board members had moved on, and Project Ridge appeared like an historic quirk, however one that will nonetheless be attention-grabbing to seek out out about. So I requested AT for experiences. It declined.
Auckland Transport thought of a brand new entity to run each the rail community and companies. (File photograph)
“Unable to offer the information that you’ve requested for confidentiality and industrial sensitivity causes,” it replied.
This appeared implausible, so I appealed to the Ombudsman, a statutory impartial workplace which ensures public bodies meet their obligations to launch information, besides in sure circumstances.
In August 2020, in an encouraging signal, the workplace wrote the Chief Ombudsman, Judge Peter Boshier, was investigating my criticism.
An extra letter in the direction of mid-2021 – 16 months after my first request – outlined progress, and was adopted by an e-mail from AT that it was “seeking to change the unique determination communicated to you”.
In July 2021, 170 pages of information arrived. The determination to withhold particulars about Project Ridge had been incorrect.
Alas, it took only a fast look to grasp that AT had recognized and determined to withhold, for 16 months, the wrong information.
The major merchandise was a 2016 presentation to AT’s board, which – in very massive font – stated: “2013 and 2014 Project Ridge proposal, not progressed as ‘one-step-too-far’”.
Somehow AT’s search for materials to satisfy my request had not gone again far sufficient, stopping practically two years after Project Ridge had been discarded.