Kia ora Darren

 

Please find attached the response to your request of 22^nd September 2022
for information under the Official Information Act 1982.

 

Ngâ mihi

 

Ministerial Services
Te Waka Kôtuia | Engagement & Partnerships
Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency

[1]twitter | [2]youtube | [3]facebook

 

[4][IMG]

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Darren Conway <[FOI #20635 email]>
Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2022 9:26 am
To: Official Correspondence <[email address]>
Subject: Official Information request - Auckland Harbour Bridge Shared
Path: SSBC unredacted

 

CAUTION: The sender of this email is from outside Waka Kotahi. Do not
click links, attachments, or reply unless you recognise the sender’s email
address and know the content is safe.

 

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

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.

 

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:

[5][FOI #20635 email]

 

Is [6][NZTA request email] the wrong address for Official
Information requests to New Zealand Transport Agency? If so, please
contact us using this form:

[7]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

 

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:

[8]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

 

If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

This message, together with any attachments, may contain information that
is classified and/or subject to legal privilege. Any classification
markings must be adhered to. If you are not the intended recipient, you
must not peruse, disclose, disseminate, copy or use the message in any
way. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email and then destroy the original message. This
communication may be accessed or retained by Waka Kotahi NZ Transport
Agency for information assurance purposes.

References

Visible links
1. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
2. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
3. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
4. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
5. mailto:[FOI #20635 email]
6. mailto:[NZTA request email]
7. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
8. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

hide quoted sections

Kia ora Darren

 

Thank you for your email of 28 October 2022 regarding our response to your
request made under the Official Information Act 1982.

 

We will look into this and provide a response to you in due course.

 

Nga mihi

 

Ministerial Services
Te Waka Kōtuia | Engagement & Partnerships
Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency

[1]twitter | [2]youtube | [3]facebook

 

[4][IMG]

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Darren Conway <[5][FOI #20635 email]>
Sent: Thursday, 27 October 2022 5:05 pm
To: Official Correspondence <[6][email address]>
Subject: Re: OIA-11063 RESPONSE

 

CAUTION: The sender of this email is from outside Waka Kotahi. Do not
click links, attachments, or reply unless you recognise the sender’s email
address and know the content is safe.

 

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

 

-----Original Message-----

 

Kia ora Darren

 

 

 

Please find attached the response to your request of 22^nd September 2022 
for information under the Official Information Act 1982.

 

 

 

Ngâ mihi

 

 

 

Ministerial Services

Te Waka Kôtuia | Engagement & Partnerships  Waka Kotahi NZ Transport
Agency

 

[1]twitter | [2]youtube | [3]facebook

 

 

 

[4][IMG]

 

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:

[7][FOI #20635 email]

 

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:

[8]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

 

If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This message, together with any attachments, may contain information that
is classified and/or subject to legal privilege. Any classification
markings must be adhered to. If you are not the intended recipient, you
must not peruse, disclose, disseminate, copy or use the message in any
way. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email and then destroy the original message. This
communication may be accessed or retained by Waka Kotahi NZ Transport
Agency for information assurance purposes.

References

Visible links
1. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
2. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
3. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
4. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
5. mailto:[FOI #20635 email]
6. mailto:[email address]
7. mailto:[FOI #20635 email]
8. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

hide quoted sections

Kia ora Darren

 

Please find attached the response to your request of 27 October 2022 for
information under the Official Information Act 1982.

 

Ngā mihi

 

Ministerial Services
Te Waka Kōtuia | Engagement & Partnerships
Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency

[1]twitter | [2]youtube | [3]facebook

 

[4][IMG]

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Darren Conway <[FOI #20635 email]>
Sent: Thursday, 27 October 2022 5:05 pm
To: Official Correspondence <[email address]>
Subject: Re: OIA-11063 RESPONSE

 

CAUTION: The sender of this email is from outside Waka Kotahi. Do not
click links, attachments, or reply unless you recognise the sender’s email
address and know the content is safe.

 

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

 

-----Original Message-----

 

Kia ora Darren

 

 

 

Please find attached the response to your request of 22^nd September 2022 
for information under the Official Information Act 1982.

 

 

 

Ngâ mihi

 

 

 

Ministerial Services

Te Waka Kôtuia | Engagement & Partnerships  Waka Kotahi NZ Transport
Agency

 

[1]twitter | [2]youtube | [3]facebook

 

 

 

[4][IMG]

 

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:

[5][FOI #20635 email]

 

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:

[6]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

 

If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

This message, together with any attachments, may contain information that
is classified and/or subject to legal privilege. Any classification
markings must be adhered to. If you are not the intended recipient, you
must not peruse, disclose, disseminate, copy or use the message in any
way. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email and then destroy the original message. This
communication may be accessed or retained by Waka Kotahi NZ Transport
Agency for information assurance purposes.

References

Visible links
1. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
2. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
3. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
4. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
5. mailto:[FOI #20635 email]
6. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

hide quoted sections

Kia ora Darren

 

Thank you for your email of 22 November 2022 regarding our response to
your request made under the Official Information Act 1982.

 

We will look into this and provide a response to you in due course.

 

Nga mihi

 

Ministerial Services
Te Waka Kōtuia | Engagement & Partnerships
Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency

[1]twitter | [2]youtube | [3]facebook

 

[4][IMG]

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Darren Conway <[5][FOI #20635 email]>
Sent: Tuesday, 22 November 2022 2:26 pm
To: Official Correspondence <[6][email address]>
Subject: Re: OIA-11063 RESPONSE

 

CAUTION: The sender of this email is from outside Waka Kotahi. Do not
click links, attachments, or reply unless you recognise the sender’s email
address and know the content is safe.

 

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

 

-----Original Message-----

 

Kia ora Darren

 

 

 

Please find attached the response to your request of 27 October 2022 for 
information under the Official Information Act 1982.

 

 

 

Ngā mihi

 

 

 

Ministerial Services

Te Waka Kōtuia | Engagement & Partnerships  Waka Kotahi NZ Transport
Agency

 

[1]twitter | [2]youtube | [3]facebook

 

 

 

[4][IMG]

 

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:

[7][FOI #20635 email]

 

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:

[8]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

 

If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This message, together with any attachments, may contain information that
is classified and/or subject to legal privilege. Any classification
markings must be adhered to. If you are not the intended recipient, you
must not peruse, disclose, disseminate, copy or use the message in any
way. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email and then destroy the original message. This
communication may be accessed or retained by Waka Kotahi NZ Transport
Agency for information assurance purposes.

References

Visible links
1. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
2. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
3. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
4. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
5. mailto:[FOI #20635 email]
6. mailto:[email address]
7. mailto:[FOI #20635 email]
8. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

hide quoted sections

Kia ora Darren

 

Thank you for your further email of 22 November 2022. We have considered
releasing the information as you have requested, and can confirm our
decision to continue withholding the information. Releasing this
information and its associated details would allow contractors insight
into our process for calculating the relevant financial figures,
particularly our maintenance and operation costs, and would therefore be
detrimental to our position and ability to undertake commercial
activities.

 

As part of the Waitematā Harbour Connections Indicative Business Case,
Waka Kotahi is currently exploring walking and cycling activities across
the Waitematā. The Waitematā Harbour Connections team is currently
engaging with the community and planning to deliver a recommendation for a
package of transport improvements in mid-2023. That is likely to encompass
all modes including light rail, buses, connections for walking and
cycling, vehicles and freight, along with addressing the future use of the
Auckland Harbour Bridge. Waka Kotahi will therefore need to engage with
contractors on commercial matters that are likely to require it to draw
upon the information and underlying methodologies that have been withheld.

 

With regard to releasing the details of the EY employee, we consulted with
the individual involved and we can now release this document in full. This
is attached for your perusal.

 

With respect to the information that has been withheld, I do not consider
there are any other factors which would render it desirable, in the public
interest, to make the information available.

 

Under section 28 of the Act, you have the right to ask the Ombudsman to
review my decision to withhold this information. The contact details for
the Ombudsman can be located at [1]www.ombudsman.parliament.nz.

 

Ngā mihi nui

Prisca

 

Priscilia Gain

Senior Ministerial Advisor, Ministerial Services
Te Waka Kotuia | Engagement & Partnerships

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Darren Conway <[2][FOI #20635 email]>
Sent: Tuesday, 22 November 2022 2:26 pm
To: Official Correspondence <[3][email address]>
Subject: Re: OIA-11063 RESPONSE

 

CAUTION: The sender of this email is from outside Waka Kotahi. Do not
click links, attachments, or reply unless you recognise the sender’s email
address and know the content is safe.

 

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

 

-----Original Message-----

 

Kia ora Darren

 

 

 

Please find attached the response to your request of 27 October 2022 for 
information under the Official Information Act 1982.

 

 

 

Ngā mihi

 

 

 

Ministerial Services

Te Waka Kōtuia | Engagement & Partnerships  Waka Kotahi NZ Transport
Agency

 

[1]twitter | [2]youtube | [3]facebook

 

 

 

[4][IMG]

 

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:

[4][FOI #20635 email]

 

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:

[5]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

 

If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This message, together with any attachments, may contain information that
is classified and/or subject to legal privilege. Any classification
markings must be adhered to. If you are not the intended recipient, you
must not peruse, disclose, disseminate, copy or use the message in any
way. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by return email and then destroy the original message. This
communication may be accessed or retained by Waka Kotahi NZ Transport
Agency for information assurance purposes.

References

Visible links
1. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...
2. mailto:[FOI #20635 email]
3. mailto:[email address]
4. mailto:[FOI #20635 email]
5. https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

hide quoted sections