Dear University of Waikato,

The New Zealand Initiative is described by the media as a "libertarian think-tank" ("Ratepayers pay $92,000 for membership of libertarian think-tank", Stuff, 22 December 2020). According to its website, your agency is a member. I would like to request the following information under the OIA:

* When did your agency join the New Zealand Initiative? Is it still a member?
* Who approved joining? Was there any formal analysis of the compatibility of membership with your agency's purposes and functions? (if so, I would like a copy)
* How much membership has cost your agency since joining.

I would prefer to receive an electronic response. Queries about this request will be automatically forwarded to me by the fyi.org.nz website.

With regards to s12 of the OIA, I am an NZ citizen and in NZ.

Yours faithfully,

Alex Harris

Dear OIA Admin,

Thankyou for your response to my OIA request seeking information on the university's membership of the New Zealand Initiative. I'd like to challenge your decision to withhold the costs of membership under s9(2)(i) for the following reasons:

* s9(2)(i) protects "commercial activities". The Ombudsman has provided guidance on this in "Commercial information: A guide to sections 9(2)(b) and 9(2)(i) of the OIA andsections7(2)(b)and 7(2)(h) of the LGOIMA". In order to apply, the activity must be "commercial" (focused on making a profit), and release must result in "prejudice or disadvantage". While the university's provision of education to fee-paying students and its provision of research services may be a commercial activity, its membership in the Institute clearly is not. Furthermore, even if it was, it is unclear what prejudice or disadvantage would result from release of the cost of membership. Other institutions (such as the University of Auckland) have released this information. It does not seem to have resulted in any "commercial disadvantage" to them. If you wish to continue to rely on this provision, I would like a statement of how you believe the activity is commercial and how it will be prejudiced (you can consider this to be a request for the grounds in support of your withholding reason under s19(a)(ii) of the Act; refusal may generate further cause for complaint to the Ombudsman).

* there is no sign in your letter that you have considered the public interest in release of the information, as required by s9(2) of the Act. The Ombudsman's guidance on the issue ("Public interest: A guide to the public interest test") makes it clear that a number of public interest factors are engaged, notably transparency, the accountability for spending public money, and the level of disquiet around public agencies belonging to lobby groups. Even if s9(2)(i) provided good reason to withhold (and I do not believe that it does), this would clearly be outweighed by the public interest in release.

I look forward to your response. Failure to release this information will result in the complaint being escalated to the Ombudsman.

Yours sincerely,

Alex Harris