Dear New Zealand Transport Agency,

Please provide the Auckland Harbour Bridge Shared Path SSBC dated 20 Jan version 4 unredacted.

Please provide the latest version of the Auckland Harbour Bridge Shared Path SSBC without redactions, if not the same version as above.

Yours faithfully,

Darren Conway

Dear Official Correspondence,

I requested an unredacted version of a business case for the Auckland Harbour Bridge Shared Path, a project that was officially terminated. You have responded by providing a link to a redacted version of the SSBC that I have read and was the reason that this OIA request was raised. In short, your response is void. To continue to maintain the redaction of parts of an SSBC that is now out of date, for a project that no longer exists, is still justified against the public interest test would appear to be untenable.

I do acknowledge and thank you for the Ernest & Young Peer Review of the Auckland Harbour Crossing. As feedback, it is my professional and qualified opinion, the value of this document is deficient not because of the work completed by EY, but by the scope of work defined, and input, by the NZTA.

OIA s 9(2)(j)
The SSBC includes extensive use of s 9(2)(j) to justify redactions. Given that the SSBC is now almost 3years old for a project that has been terminated, it is difficult to perceive any possible instance of where redaction continues to be justified, if it ever was. Section 9(2)(j) applies where withholding is necessary to enable any agency holding the information to carry on negotiations without prejudice or disadvantage. Justification based on some vague reference to other work, unrelated in time or location, could most optimistically be described as frail.

I challenge all application of s9(2)(j) applied to the SSBC.

If the NZTA still believes that s9(2)(j) still justifies redactions, then for each instance I request that NZTA:
1. identify the specific negotiations; and
2. explain precisely how release of the information at issue would prejudice or disadvantage them in carrying on those negotiations.

Property Impacts
I have no desire or need to know any information related to specific properties. This does not void the request for identification of specific negotiations and how the release of the information would affect negotiations under s9(2)(j) .

Tables 8 Project Benefits, 9 Agglomeration Benefits, 10 Tourism Benefits
Given that I already have obtained the SSBC economic analysis under a separate OIA request, I can say with a high level of confidence that the justification for redacting the values in tables 8,9 and 10 under s9(2)(j) is no longer valid, if it ever was. That assumes that the values in the analysis match those in the SSBC.

The same confidence applies to all other redacted values.

Redaction of Names under s(9)(2)(a)
The published SSBC includes s(9)(2)(a) to justify redaction of names. In all instances, it appears that these are the names of those employed on the project. To quote the Ombudsman guidance: The Ombudsman’s general position is that there is usually no basis for withholding staff names if all that would be revealed is what they did in their official capacity—‘New Zealand does not have a tradition of an anonymous public service’

Similarly, contractors should have a reasonable expectation that their names will be released to the public. It is definitely in the public interest to know the identity of key personnel. As a specific example, the EY Report redacts the name of the Partner. The EY website includes the name of Partners. Applying s(9)(2)(a) to protect the privacy of living individuals who are already known in the public domain would seem to be futile.

I challenge the use of application of s(9)(2)(a) to redact names.

Redaction of Free and Frank Opinion s9(2)(g)(i)
s9(2)(g)(i) exists to protect free and frank opinions. It is difficult to consider how the redacted text in the Document Control section could in any way could qualify for protection under this section.

Given the frailty of the justification applied under other sections of the OIA, I challenge the application of s9(2)(g)(i) to the document control section.

Yours sincerely,

Darren Conway

Dear Official Correspondence,
Thank you for removing most of the redactions from the requested Auckland Harbour Bridge Shared Path Single Stage Business Case.

Thank you also for clarifying that you are relying upon section 9(2)(i) of the Act, not section 9(2)(j), This makes no material difference to my original request or expectations. The financial information that remains redacted is contained within a document that is now over three years old, that predates the economic impact of Covid 19, for a project that has been officially terminated. The values are out of date, and most likely high level. The SSBC is not marked in any way to indicate that it might contain any confidential information. It is difficult to perceive relevance to any other project that is not a shared path across the harbour. The suggestion that some or any of this financial information could be used in any sort of future negotiation would raise serious questions of concern.

Section 9(2)(j) of the OIA applies where withholding is necessary to enable the agency that holds the information to carry on negotiations without prejudice or disadvantage. It seems more likely that the use of out dated and largely irrelevant financial information would itself be prejudicial and disadvantageous to the NZTA. That would place the request for information outside the scope of s 9(2)(i) or s 9(2)(j) of the OIA.

My request for the release of the redacted information:
page 11, sentence,
pg 52, Table 11
pg 53, Tables 12 & 13
pg 58, sentences
pg 59 Table 15
pg 60 Tables 16 & 17
pg 61 All
pg 64 part paragraph
section "Financial Case" and
"Appendix H"

remains extant.

With regard to my request for the redacted names, and your clarification sought in the acknowledgement, please provide the name of the Ernst and Young consultant.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Darren Conway