AI is changing both sides of the official information process – making it easier for people to generate requests, while also giving councils new tools to help process them.
The Office of the Ombudsman has released new guidance on what that means in practice, with some important advice for local government professionals working with LGOIMA.
The full guide is available at ombudsman.parliament.nz
You can find more information and guidance on handling LGOIMA – Information Requests on the Taituarā Council Toolkit which is available to all those with a council email address.
We’ve pulled together a few key points relevant for local government professionals found in the new guide below. We are also looking into holding a webinar to go into this topic in more detail.
1. An AI-written request is still a request
Councils are likely to see more requests that have been drafted with AI. These can look polished and authoritative, but they may also be overly broad, unnecessarily complex or contain references to legislation, cases or obligations that simply don’t exist.
That doesn’t make the request invalid.
The Ombudsman’s advice is to focus on what information the person is actually seeking. If the request is unclear or extremely broad, early engagement can help clarify or narrow its scope. And if AI has got the law or facts wrong, it’s okay to politely point that out.
Existing LGOIMA provisions also continue to apply. Depending on the circumstances, councils can consider extensions, charging, providing summaries or excerpts, or refusing requests that require substantial collation or research.
The guidance also addresses situations where councils receive large numbers of overlapping or potentially vexatious AI-generated requests, including a local government case study exploring when refusal under section 17(h) of LGOIMA may be appropriate.
2. Councils can use AI too
AI could also make parts of the LGOIMA process easier for those responding to requests.
The Ombudsman identifies a range of potential uses, including searching for relevant records, triaging requests, monitoring deadlines, preparing draft responses, summarising information and assisting with redactions.
The important word is assisting. Responsibility for the final decision remains with the council. Staff still need to check the information AI has identified, make decisions about what should be released or withheld, and ensure any redactions have been made correctly.
Councils also need to think carefully about what information staff are putting into AI tools, particularly where requests involve personal, confidential or sensitive information.
3. Your AI prompts could become official information
Perhaps one of the most important points in the guidance is that using AI can create official information of its own.
Where AI is used for official council business, prompts and outputs that are retained may themselves be information held by the council and therefore subject to LGOIMA.
That can also apply when staff or elected members use personal AI accounts for official purposes.
It raises some important records management questions. If an AI-generated output contributes meaningfully to a decision, action or final document, it may need to be retained. In some cases, the prompt may also be important because it provides context for how the output was generated.
The Ombudsman recommends councils make sure their recordkeeping policies cover information generated through AI.
4. Be transparent about how you’ve used it
If AI plays a meaningful role in responding to a request, the Ombudsman’s advice is to be open about it.
For example, if AI has been used to identify or collate information, the requester should be told. If it has generated a summary, councils should explain that AI was used, that the summary was checked by an official and any limitations around its accuracy.
Behind the scenes, councils should also keep enough information to explain how AI contributed to the process. That could include prompts and search parameters, refinements made along the way, information included or excluded, and the human checks undertaken.
The underlying principle is straightforward: using AI doesn’t reduce a council’s accountability.
As AI becomes a more routine part of both making and responding to official information requests, councils will need processes that allow them to take advantage of the technology while maintaining human judgement, good records and transparency.
For local government professionals, now is a good time to ask whether your council’s AI, LGOIMA and records management policies are keeping pace. Councils should focus on developing practical capability, maintaining strong human oversight, and ensuring that transparency and accountability remain at the centre of official information processes.
Read the Office of the Ombudsman’s Advice for agencies on information requests and AI.
