Tena koe,

Please supply the briefing materials an advice on databases used to inform the communication below.

************************
Final Decision of Ombudsman 582255 (Complaint ground: 582256)
************************************
Dear Mr Innes
Official Information Act investigation – Department of Internal Affairs – Request for a copy of the Archway Database

Thank you for your letter of 11 March 2024, concerning your complaint about the decision of Archives New Zealand (the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA)) to refuse your request for a copy of the Archway Database.

I have now had an opportunity to consider your comments on the provisional opinion. However, having considered all the issues raised, I have now formed the final opinion that DIA was entitled to refuse your request, on the basis that the information requested cannot be made available without substantial collation or research.

I address your response to my provisional opinion below.

Your response
You have responded that the statements from DIA are disingenuous and explained that while you are not an expert in databases, you have enough familiarity with them to know that a number of the statements made by the DIA are false. In particular, you consider that DIA’s statements that it is not possible to export or download the Archway data and that Archway Staff does not have the functionality for bulk download are dishonest. However, I note that your objections to DIA’s statements rely on a number of assumptions about its system. I reiterate the key points from DIA that export from the Archway Public database was not feasible as it had been decommissioned and that the remaining Archway Staff database did not have the functionality for bulk download. Any attempt to meet your request, even if it were technically feasible, would have required substantial collation and research of information held on Archway Staff to ensure restricted records (of which there are around 800,000) were not released.

Having analysed DIA’s response and drawn on the necessary expertise, my opinion remains unchanged.

I also acknowledge your concern with the functionality of the Collections Search system, and your view the DIA is not meeting its obligations under Section 47 of the Public Records Act 2005. You noted that the issue of the Collections Search not being able to provide a means of fully discovering and accessing the public records held by Archives New Zealand was not directly addressed by DIA or the provisional opinion.

The complaint raised by you was in relation to Archives New Zealand’s refusal of your request for a copy of the Archway Database, relying on section 18(f) of the OIA. My investigation was commenced under the OIA and considered whether DIA was entitled to refuse this request. Where an agency is subject to the Ombudsmen Act 1975 (OA), an Ombudsman may investigate a complaint about the acts or decisions of that agency under the OA, however, a complainant is generally expected to have exhausted all other reasonably available ways of resolving the matter before the Ombudsman would consider investigating. This includes formally complaining to the
chief executive of the agency, who is often in a position to resolve the matter or at least provide an explanation.

It is unclear whether you have made a formal complaint to DIA about your concerns about the Collection Search system itself. If you have not already, you can escalate the matter to the Chief Executive of DIA, Paul James. You can do so by writing to [email address], and addressing your concerns to Mr James.

I have now concluded my investigation into your OIA complaint.

Yours sincerely

Peter Boshier

Chief Ombudsman