Data from ACC

[sleemanj]

Mention was made by Les on CloseUp that data from the ACC was quoted to BRONZ at $10,000.

I can't immediately find a reference to this request or quote here at Kiwibiker, but as ACC is state owned, it strikes me that this information should be available under the OIA (Official Information Act).

The scope of the Act is extremely broad, and includes all information held by any Minister in their official capacity, or by any government department or organisation (as listed in the Act or the Ombudsmen Act 1975). This includes government ministries, hospitals, universities, schools, the Security Intelligence Service, and even state-owned enterprises.

Government organisations have 20 working days to respond, and if a request is refused in whole or in part, they must give reasons for the refusal. Decisions can be appealed to the Ombudsman. Organisations can charge for large requests, but this is very rare.

This is an intresting blog about such requests... http://officialinfo.wordpress.com/

[Hitcher]

The Official Information Act is about the release of information. Government agencies subject to the provisions of this Act are able to charge for information if it requires a considerable amount of collation or resources, such as copying.

$10,000 must be ACC's estimate of the necessary collation and copying costs.

Such a claim doesn't help their alleged postion of "transparancy".

Getting this concession tonight from ACC's CEO is a major win. Well done Les!

[sleemanj]

My expectation would be that if the ACC is quoting $10,000 for it, that the Ombudsman would have something to say to ACC about that.

It would be nonsensical for the ACC to claim that this data is not already in an electronic format and that it could be supplied on a hard disk drive for not much more than a hundred bucks.

[325rocket]

My expectation would be that if the ACC is quoting $10,000 for it, that the Ombudsman would have something to say to ACC about that.

It would be nonsensical for the ACC to claim that this data is not already in an electronic format and that it could be supplied on a hard disk drive for not much more than a hundred bucks.

good point.
if its not easily available how did ACC get their figures?

[merv]

good point.
if its not easily available how did ACC get their figures?

They've wasted your hard earned money on internal costs to do it.

[Blue TLS]

They've wasted your hard earned money on internal costs to do it.

At least they haven't wasted it on a foolish biker who's had an accident

[Ixion]

My expectation would be that if the ACC is quoting $10,000 for it, that the Ombudsman would have something to say to ACC about that.

It would be nonsensical for the ACC to claim that this data is not already in an electronic format and that it could be supplied on a hard disk drive for not much more than a hundred bucks.

Well, I had an unsolicited call early this morning from a David Barham of ACC to say he was organising it!

I emphasised we wanted raw data , not press release figures.

He *seemed* to understand. We shall see.

As to the original $10000 figure: I'm sure that ACC have it easily accessible. But , when they supply information to the public they have to be aware of privacy issues. For instance, obviously they can't include data that has personal details (name address phone number) etc in it. Less obviously, even if the data is depersonalised and summarised, it can still be non-anonymous. For instance, if you asked for costs of crashes by month and district, including a breakdown of how much was medical costs and how much income replacement (ERC). That would probably be OK in Auckland , the number of crashes each month would be great enough that individual amounts would be lost in the big total. But, in Eketahuna, in , say, June 2006, there may have been only one crash. So the totals would actually be the details for that one crash. And it would be fairly easy to find out who it was , especially if you lived in Ekatahuna. So now you know a lot of stuff about that person (including a good estimate of their income). Oh dear.

Cleaning that sort of stuff up is time consuming and laborious - I've had to do it in the past.

[k2w3]

In that case, $10k sounds like a bargain! :-)

[kwaka_crasher]

But, in Eketahuna, in , say, June 2006, there may have been only one crash. So the totals would actually be the details for that one crash.

But aren't you only requesting national not regional numbers?

[Ixion]

Sigh. As expected.

They came through with a nice pdf report .

"ACC Motor Vehicle Account
2010/11 Technical Report on
Levy Setting Methodology
For Consultation"

I've emailed them back

Hi David

Sorry, but although that's a very nice report, and I will read it with interest it is NOT what we asked for , nor what was agreed on 'Closeup'

What we asked for , and Mr McLea agreed to, was the raw data behind those numbers.

ie , that underlying figures that were used to produce those figures and conclusions . I'd expect this in the form of either a detached database file, or an XML dataset , or perhaps a csv file

If that sounds gibberish to you, your IT team will understand it.

Thanks Les

I imagine something very much more forceful will be required on Monday.

[Ixion]

But aren't you only requesting national not regional numbers?

I'm a DBA. I want data at the lowest possible level.

Ideally I'd like individual claims. However, that's probably not realistic given privacy requirements. So, at whatever level is the lowest possible.

But I don't want pre aggregated data, based on who knows what parameters .

There can't be all that much . 4 million population, say, last 10 years, maybe max 100 million records. I'll slice and dice it, or Charles Lamb will

Raw data FTW.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Raw data FTW.

sad thing is, I don't think we will get it, even if they do... and it seems like the raw files, I and it looks offical and looks like the data, I would still be doubious about the data,

easy enough to make a back up and then tweak the backup files to say what they want it to say... not saying thats what is going to happen... but

[kwaka_crasher]

I imagine something very much more forceful will be required on Monday.

Tuesday...

I'm a DBA. I want data at the lowest possible level.

Ideally I'd like individual claims. However, that's probably not realistic given privacy requirements. So, at whatever level is the lowest possible.

But I don't want pre aggregated data, based on who knows what parameters.

There can't be all that much . 4 million population, say, last 10 years, maybe max 100 million records. I'll slice and dice it, or Charles Lamb will

Raw data FTW.

At least raw data minus locality...

Methinks they won't be forthcoming as even their presently avaiable data doesn't suport their justification of the current levy change proposal. Just imagine how damning the real data will be once it's collated into over-simplified statements (like "motorcyclists are 18 times more likely to be injured in a crash") only intentionally in SUPPORT of our position rather than AGAINST it...

Nice job on Close Up, BTW.

[Ixion]

sad thing is, I don't think we will get it, even if they do... and it seems like the raw files, I and it looks offical and looks like the data, I would still be doubious about the data,

easy enough to make a back up and then tweak the backup files to say what they want it to say... not saying thats what is going to happen... but

I done some auditing in my time. Doubt they'd go down that path though, it's not the way the bureaucratic mind works

More likely just "Oh, that's not what we meant"

[AllanB]

I'd expect them to try to bombard you with massive amounts of unorganized crap so that you'll just 'go away'.

Out of interest I'd like to see what the NZ Government has paid the Aussie company to compile their figures .........