FOI update – The BoM has no record of contacts by NIWA before 16 August 2010

Last May I reported on my February FOI request to the BoM to release to me all documents and data connected with their peer review of the seven station series for NIWA. See my article – “Australian FOI law keeps secret the construction of New Zealand seven station temperature series”. Note that the BoM Schedule of Documents supplied to me commences on 30 August 2010.

The Kiwis brought to my attention the following question and answer in the New Zealand Parliament 18 March 2010.
Beehive question

This indicates that NIWA had contacted – was corresponding with the BoM six-months PRIOR to the 30 August 2010 commencing date for documents they found pursuant to my February 2011 FOI request.

On 31 May I emailed the BoM and drew their attention to this six-month discrepancy. Twenty weeks later and the BoM has just sent me an addendum to their original Schedule of Documents – see link above.

This Addendum lists 14 more NIWA/BoM documents (all exempt) – but dated from 16 August 1 September 2010. So it looks to me that the BoM are saying – “…we have no record of NIWA contacting us prior to 16 August 2010.”

7 thoughts on “FOI update – The BoM has no record of contacts by NIWA before 16 August 2010”

  1. Warwick I haven’t checked but assuming from what you say the documents now included in the Amended BOM Schedule were not included in the original BOM schedule my question is why not as from my recollection your initial FOI was comprehensive enough to cover the material included in the amended schedule
    Just wondering …

  2. I just had a quick look comparing the previous schedule with the addendum
    so far as I can see
    1 documents 162-167 in the addendum were not included in the previous schedule
    2 the documents no 168-175 are I think not included in the previous schedule or if they are the description is different

  3. What a great way they’ve chosen to disprove any suspicions that there is collusion and faking of results going on.

    Just what is so secretive about this temperature “record”? And who did decide that they were to be hidden from non-BOM eyes?

    It is obvious that you have caught the BOM lying about the dates, and that there must be other documents previous to those denied to you, or have they changed the dates of some documents to confuse the trail?

    Good luck on your quest, but C. Northcote Parkinson pointed out that when under siege, Public Servants copy sheep in the presence of wolves …forming a ring with horns outwards and the weaker individuals concealed. Denying everything until the attackers attention falls elsewhere.

  4. Val, just downloaded the FOI Act. On a quick look it appears that BOM must release the requested information. Apart from the Ethics Act which Public Sevants should uphold (this is in APS code of conduct -•not provide false or misleading information in response to a request for information) , any document concerning the request I believe could come under the Evidence Act ie it must be truthful.
    You have legal experience but I would suggest the Warwick could put the hard word on BOM and say that they should try harder or he will take them to court.

  5. cementafriend congratulations on ploughing through the FOI Act

    If you check back to Warwick’s original post you will find the BOM’s schedule of documents

    the column second from the right lists the exemptions claimed and the relevant section of the FOI act

    the amended schedule also claims exemptions

    So, the point is that the act does contain exemptions and Warwick has kindly uploaded the relevant sections

    in the Act the exempt documents are listed in Part IV

    and you’re certainly right about the Evidence Act

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *