In brief

• NIWA refuses to release information requested under the Official Information Act (OIA), citing ministerial secrecy.

• Centrist’s questions highlight NIWA’s lack of transparency regarding Cyclone Gabrielle and Hawke’s Bay flooding.

• Section 9(2)(g)(i) was used to withhold information that did not involve ministerial communications.

• NIWA CEO John Morgan denies holding critical information, raising concerns about the agency’s competence and credibility.

Will the Science Minister regret staking her credibility on NIWA?

Just weeks ago, Science Minister Judith Collins staked her own credibility on that of NIWA, saying she still had confidence in the climate agency’s competence, but today she might be regretting that.

NIWA’s research skills were already in doubt after the Hawkes Bay flood review found that major historic storms were missing from NIWA’s research, meaning assurances about how rare major storms like Cyclone Gabrielle were didn’t hold water, so to speak.

Now, NIWA has again raised questions about its competence after refusing to answer questions under the Official Information Act.

Centrist asked five questions of NIWA management:

Under the Official Information Act I seek the following:

 1.  Any documents (but not news media summaries), emails, Teams transcripts, internal messages dated or created between 1 February 2023 and 16 February 2023 that mention the words “cyclone” and/or “Gabrielle”

2.  Any documents… that mention any previous historic storms or flooding events in the Hawke’s Bay region

3.  Any documents… dated or created between 8 July 2024 and 1 August 2024 as a consequence of my emails to NIWA, NIWA’s directors, MBIE and the Minister’s office on 8/7/24, 9/7/24, 10/7/24, 11/7/24, 15/7/24, 24/7/24 and 25/7/24…. or the stories published 12 July and 26 July on the Centrist website.

4.  Any documents… dated or created between 1 June 2024 and 1 August 2024 that discuss the findings of the HBRC independent review into cyclone Gabrielle flooding released 24 July 2024.

5.  For John Morgan to formally answer the questions first asked of him in an email sent to him on 10 July 2024 at 1:13pm

Please also note that I drew attention in the 8 July email to Stacy Mohan, to the Ombudsman ruling that public servants are not entitled to anonymity except in exceptional circumstances.

For questions 1-4, NIWA has refused to release the information:

“Our response to your enquiry is as follows. Questions 1–4: We are withholding this information under section 9 (2) (g)(i).”

Section 9(2)(g)(i) of the Act says:

“(g) maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through—

(i)     the free and frank expression of opinions by or between or to Ministers of the Crown or members of an organisation or officers and employees of any public service agency or organisation in the course of their duty”

Let’s look at whether that defence applies

Question 1 asks merely for documents “dated or created between 1 February 2023 and 16 February 2023 that mention the words “cyclone” and/or “Gabrielle”. The ministerial communications defence doesn’t apply. Strike 1 against NIWA management.

Question 2 asks for documents “dated or created between 17 February 2023 and 28 February 2023 that mention any previous historic storms or flooding events in the Hawke’s Bay region.” Again it had nothing to do with the minister. Strike 2 against NIWA management.

Question 4 asks for any documents “dated or created between 1 June 2024 and 1 August 2024 that discuss the findings of the HBRC independent review into cyclone Gabrielle flooding released 24 July 2024.” Again, the minister is not involved. Strike 3 against NIWA management.

The only question the defence could possibly apply to is Question 3, which among other things specifically sought communications between NIWA and its minister.

That seems to mean NIWA is not prepared  to fulfil its legal obligations under the OIA and answer Questions 1, 2 and 4.

As for Question 3, NIWA had already set a precedent and released ministerial communications previously, which is how Centrist first discovered NIWA had seemingly misled parliament last year.

Question 5 in the list was denied under Section 18(g) of the Official Information Act, which says that the information doesn’t exist.

So let’s look at the “information” NIWA’s chief executive John Morgan says he doesn’t have. Remember, NIWA claimed to have read the Climate of Fear Study in March 2023, which found big historic storms were missing from NIWA’s database. NIWA’s Morgan issued a press statement about the study and briefed his minister. Here are the questions that formed Question 5:

Question 5 – the 10 July 2024 questions

1. How did you first become aware of CoF? [Climate of Fear study]

2. When did you read the complete report?

3. There’s no email or internal message from you or any senior management asking for a full briefing on CoF. Why did you fail to request a fact check?

4. At what point did you think it was a good idea to answer ministerial and parliamentary questions in the absence of any kind of detailed assessment?

5. How could you assure the executive and legislative wings that NIWA was competent and nothing was missing when in fact you didn’t have a clue?

6. The view will be expressed that NIWA misled Parliament, what is your response to this and why?

7. Does the blame lie with you as CEO, or the Comms and Climate teams?

Is this an attempt to avoid answering questions on the quality of NIWA’s research skills and politics, and what role both played in the deaths of 11 people in Cyclone Gabrielle? The answers given suggest NIWA’s CEO doesn’t hold information on whether he read the Climate of Fear study that he told his then minister last year was wrong. They also suggest NIWA wants people to believe it can’t release Cyclone Gabrielle documents from February last year because of current minister Judith Collins.

Collins has shown a high political pain tolerance over NIWA to date, but it’s worth noting, when the last Labour government boasted about being “open and transparent”, it was Collins taking to social media and mocking the “deceitful” sanitisation of data released by Labour under the OIA. Now the boot is, ironically, on the other foot and it’s Collins’ agency looking “deceitful”.

_{Feature image: Linkedin}