Initially such a recommendation could be overturned by a Minister giving a directive in writing, but in 1987 the Act was amended so that vetoing an Ombudsman's decision required an order in council. No Ombudsman's decision has been vetoed since the amendment was passed. In addition to the complaints procedure under the OIA, the general procedures of government agencies (but not Ministers) in handling OIA requests are subject to the Ombudsman's jurisdiction under the Ombudsmen Act 1975. This has led to a series of "practice investigations", aimed at improving general OIA practice across government. The Act originally contained provisions for individuals to access and correct personal information about themselves. These provisions were replaced by the Privacy Act 1993, but a legacy provision still covers corporate entities. The Act requires the Ministry of Justice to produce a directory of official information, setting out the functions, structure, contact details, and information held by each agency subject to the Act. The Act provides immunity from civil and criminal proceedings for good faith decisions to release information under the Act. This includes immunity from defamation, breach of copyright, and breach of confidence, and covers the crown, public servants, and the original authors of any information released. The Act initially included the creation and functions of an Information Authority, charged with managing the implementation of the Act. These provisions expired in 1988, and the authority was dissolved. Initially dismissed as a "nine-day wonder" by Prime Minister Robert Muldoon, the OIA has since been recognised as a significant constitutional measure. It has significantly changed the culture of government, leading to a culture of openness under which a great deal of information is made public as a matter of routine. Individuals find it easier to learn if they have been treated fairly by government agencies. The expectation of eventual public scrutiny is also believed to have significantly improved the quality of advice to government. Approximately 45,000 requests are made under the Act each year, with over 90% of them answered within statutory timeframes. The Act is routinely used by political parties, journalists, lobbyists and individuals to gain a wide range of information, from government policy and statistics to information about decision-making, and "useful – and even embarrassing – information is regularly released". However, there has been constant friction between requesters complaining that information is disclosed reluctantly and state agencies concerned about the time and cost of meeting requests. There is evidence that there are significant differences in treatment between uncontroversial and politically sensitive requests, and frequent claims in the media that the law is being violated. Then-Prime Minister John Key admitted explicitly delaying the release of information to suit the interests of the government, while in another case the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service was found to have provided a speedy release to a blogger in order to embarrass the leader of the opposition.