Ombudsman investigates University of Canterbury over Anne-Marie Brady review

The Ombudsman has launched an investigation into the University of Canterbury’s decision to refuse the release of information relating to a review of the work of one of its most high profile academics, world-renowned China expert Professor Anne-Marie Brady.

The university launched a review into a paper co-authored by Brady last year, after complaints alleged “manifest errors of fact and misleading inferences”, but those complaints were ultimately dismissed.

The review was criticised by more than 100 academics for potentially infringing on her right to academic freedom. Questions were also raised about whether the university respected the fact that the paper under investigation was first published as a select committee submission and possibly by Parliamentary Privilege.

Stuff requested through the Official Information Act correspondence between the university and Brady regarding the review in order to shed light on how the review was conducted.

READ MORE:
* University of Canterbury academic Anne-Marie Brady cleared after complaints
* Speaker Trevor Mallard asked to weigh-in on Anne-Marie Brady complaints
* International support for University of Canterbury China expert Anne-Marie Brady

The university rejected the request, saying correspondence needed to be withheld “to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the free and frank expression of opinions”.

“The nature of the information withheld under this ground is views regarding the review of Professor Brady’s article,” said the university, in an email to Stuff.

It said this information was expressed in emails, which, were they to be released, could lead to staff refraining from using email in future.

“University staff often discuss such matters over email, given that they are spread out across the campus or working offsite.

“While staff are aware that communications can be released under the Act, they would be unwilling to communicate via email if they thought material would be released without due consideration.

“The university is of the view that there is significant public interest in staff being able to express free and frank opinions, which email facilitates.”

The university also argued the correspondence included private information of the complainants and legally privileged information, which can be withheld under the Act.

It acknowledged there was a “public interest in knowing how complaints regarding Professor Brady’s article were handled”, but these were outweighed by the “view that the public interest in ensuring an impartial review was undertaken”.

A complaint was laid by Stuff with the Ombudsman in April, disputing the grounds on which the information was released.

On May 6, National MP Simon O’Connor and Labour MP Louisa Wall wrote to the Ombudsman saying the university was wrong to withhold the information, and urging the Ombudsman to prioritise Stuff’s complaint.

O’Connor and Wall said the refusal to release that information was “not appropriate or in line with the requirements of the Official Information Act”.

O’Connor and Wall are co-chairs the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China – a group of Parliamentarians from across the globe who scrutinise China-related concerns.

Wall said she supported the Ombudsman’s decision to investigate and hoped it would “confirm whether or not there is information that the University of Canterbury should be sharing that's in the public interest”.

On May 13, Stuff received correspondence on behalf of Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier, saying an investigation had begun.

“I have today written to the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Canterbury to commence the investigation. I have asked for the relevant information and the reasons for the decision,” the letter said.

A university spokesperson said they had received notification of the complaint and would respond to the enquiries.

Members of the academic community have stood by Brady during the review. Victoria University lecturer Dr Catherine Churchman wrote in Newsroom that the Brady’s paper had led to policy changes made by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade about the export of goods “that pose security, political or reputational risks to New Zealand”.

She argued these changes showed the Government took Brady’s concerns seriously.

Brady was approached for comment.