Some public servants toy with OIA requests

December 2, 2008

The free flow of information is one of the foundation stones of democracy, that’s why we have an Official Information Act.

But  some public servants are playing games with OIA requests.

The Office of the Ombudsmen is concerned some parts of the public service have been deliberately delaying responses to Official Information requests.

In the office’s Annual Report to Parliament, Chief Ombudsmen Beverley Wakem says the practice is unacceptable and subverts the purpose of the legislation.

Beverley Wakem says the Office has observed an increasing tendency by a few government departments and Ministerial offices to ignore the provisions of the Official Information Act over the timing of responses to requesters.

“While in some cases this was clearly a misunderstanding of their obligations, there is also a regrettable tendency to game the system and delay responses until the complainants’ interest in the matter had passed,” she says.

Ignorance is no excuse and it appears that some of the delays are a deliberate attempt to hide information.

New Zealand has a proud record of being relatively free of corruption.  This sort of game playing by the previous administration and their staff threatens that so I hope John Key makes it clear to his cabinet that their obligation is to ensure they and staff in ministries and departments make information freely available unless there is a very, very good reason for not doing so.

Kiwblog suggests that departments and offices which have been playing games be named and shamed.

Roarprawn gives an example of an answer to an OIA request being edited.

goNZofreakpower links this to the ACC blowout and lists the major offenders.


Come home campaign canned

September 8, 2008

What a surprise – the come home Kiwis campaign didn’t work.

A marketing campaign aimed at luring expat New Zealanders home from Australia has been canned and declared a failure.

An evaluation of the campaign, obtained under The Official Information Act by The Dominion Post, found it received more media coverage in New Zealand than Australia.

The campaign was launched in May 2006 at a cost $1 million a year.

A similar campaign was more successful in Britain where it was launched in November 2005.

The evaluation found New Zealanders were more integrated in Australia than in Britain and the lifestyle was not sufficiently different to be a selling point.

It was cancelled because it had “not proven to be effective”.

Neither campaign made any difference in the number of people leaving New Zealand.

It’s not people choosing to leave the country for their OE nor choosing not to return that is the real problem.

It is the people who feel they have to go and can’t come back because they have a better life in other countries that is the real problem.

The solution to that is not spin, it’s economic growth and the social improvements which come with it.


They’re spending our money on their campaign again

August 5, 2008

Bill English  has proof that Labour is spending tax payers’ money on their election campaign – again.

“Labour is at it again, using taxpayer money in a bid to be re-elected, just as they did with the pledge card in 2005.”

Mr English is referring to a document obtained by National under the Official Information Act. It refers to the taxpayer-funded Budget pamphlet titled ‘A fair economy for a strong future’.

“For the first time, the General Secretary of the Labour Party has confirmed that pamphlet was an election advertisement, which was funded and produced by the Labour Leader’s Office.”

The letter reads: ‘The pamphlet is an election advertisement on behalf of the Labour Party, which was produced by the Labour Leader’s office on behalf of the Labour Party’.

Mr English says the Labour Party has become so brazen that the secretary of the party now openly acknowledges they are funding their campaign with taxpayer money.

“Once again, the New Zealand Labour Party appears to be using large chunks of taxpayer funded Parliamentary Service money to pay for election brochures.

“Helen Clark must now confirm that the party will include the brochure as an election expense, although that is no guarantee, since Labour promised to do that with the pledge card but changed its mind after the 2005 election.

“Now all four parties which supported the Electoral Finance Act have been found to have breached it, and three of them are being investigated by police.

“Labour’s now executing the agenda which its self-serving Electoral Finance Act was designed to facilitate. All Kiwi taxpayers are now being forced to fund Labour’s re-election campaign.”

Either they haven’t learned from the damage they inflicted on themselves by mis spending taxpayers’ money at the last election, or they’re so desperate they don’t care. 

[The letter from the party secretary is here]


Clark Shoots Messenger

June 30, 2008

A tape of Helen Clark’s speech to a journalism conference in which she criticised the media has been released after an Official Information Act request by a member of the public and the intervention of the ombudsman.

On the tape, Clark is severely critical of journalists for their alleged lack of knowledge of world events, historical context, and “letting the facts get in the way of the story.”

Shouldn’t the criticism be for not  letting the facts get in the way of the story?

She claims TV3 political editor Duncan Garner had told a seminar that “politicians always lie”.

“I’m sorry, politicians don’t always lie. I’m quite appalled by that statement. I think it’s important that scrutiny is not confused with cynicism,” Clark said.

Of course politicians don’t always lie, but Garner says what he actually said was that the first instinct of politicians when cornered was to lie.

Clark says there are large gaps in journalists’ general knowledge, and in geography, sociology, and economic matters.

“Very few journalists have any comprehension of the range of relations New Zealand has, the range of issues New Zealand is involved in.”

Most journalists were too young to remember seminal events in the country’s history, she says.

“Today’s political editors of the two main TV channels were barely in their infancy, if born, when Norman Kirk brought the troops back from Vietnam, the Springbok tour, sent the frigate to Mururoa – events that to many of our age group were seminal events,” Clark said.

“Muldoon and David Lange are basically ancient history too and world war one and two are antedivulian.”

Lack of institutional knowledge in newsrooms is a concern but she’s got to remember that it’s not only young people who don’t share her memories of what she considers important. It’s 27 years since I started journalism and I don’t remember Kirk bringing the troops back from Vietnam – I would have been at high school at the time.  The Springbok tour happened a few months after I started work and I remember reporting on it, but it isn’t nearly as important to me as it obviously is to her.

Clark said trends in journalism included “making the story all about them”, a “rush to judgment” on blogging, a refusal to send journalists on overseas trips, and competition that was leading to inaccuracies.

“There wouldn’t be a day go by when something isn’t just plain wrong,” she said.

There are journalists who blog but not all blogs are journalism and not all rush – some of us take a carefully considered path to judgement 😉

I’ll concede that mistakes happen too often and it must be frustrating – but sometimes it’s not the reporting that’s wrong when it doesn’t reflect your own view.

Clark said New Zealand was fortunate to have a free media, however, and politicians still needed journalists as much as the media needed political news.  

Clark courted journalists when she became Prime Minister, and she got a pretty gentle run for a time. Now they’re reporting a different view of the world from hers and she’s taking it personally.

[Update: Karl du Fresne has another view on the media here]


%d bloggers like this: