Labour announced yesterday that we are trying something new. A new way of developing policy. Out in the open, and involving you.
We are developing a policy on open and transparent government. This is how you can participate.
Stage 1. Participate in the first round of discussion
This is a brainstorming phase. We want to hear all your ideas, suggestions, and the issues you think are important regards open and transparent government. At this stage any contribution is welcome and valid, no matter how left field. Blog posts, links to news articles and reports or research, commentary on what’s happening in other countries, your half thought through or fully structured thoughts, anything is welcome.
It would be great if you could use the OpenLabourNZ tag whenever you write about the issue. This will make it easier for us to find and aggregate your input.
To participate you can:
- Comment on this Red Alert post
- Write your own blog post, use the tag OpenLabourNZ, and link to this post
- Post a message on twitter using the #OpenLabourNZ hashtag
- Post a message on your Facebook page and make sure you let me know
- Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/clarecurranmp |
- Add me on Facebook: www.facebook.com/clarecurranmp?ref=profile
- Email your views to me directly at clare.curran@parliament.govt.nz
- Write to me c/-Parliament
Stage 2. Participate in a public event
Labour will host a public event in about four/five weeks (date to be announced) which you can attend in person, or through remote access. We hope to stream it live and to have several prominent speakers on open, transparent government. This is an opportunity to take part in a live discussion on the main issues raised during the first round of discussions and to hear other people’s views.
Stage 3. Comment on the draft policy on the wiki
After the public event, a draft policy paper will be put together by an independent writer who will be tasked with drawing together all the major themes and issues raised during Stages 1 and 2. The draft paper will be placed on a wiki for editing by anyone who wants to participate, over a defined period. It will then be finalised, and presented to Labour as a major piece of input into our policy development process.
Please participate in good faith. If you have any questions, just post them on this blog or email me directly.
Reform of the OIA
Reform of the Citizen’s Initiated Refernda Act
I’d like for a Republic Referndum to become Labour party policy
Removal of the 5% threshold for MMP representation
Sounds great Clare. I suppose the common threads would become evident through collation. For example under the heading of Democracy, it would be interesting to know how many people regard that is a topic worth a focus.
Democracy Local Goverment. eg Auckland
Democracy and the right to Object. RMA?
Democracy for local decision making eg Caterbury water.
Democracy decisions. eg, mining, public transport.
Democracy Freedom of Information
-and so on. I guess I am wondering if Labour would consider choosing just 3 major foci (?) to constantly respond to, and less focus on the “little” things?
Gee, that’s not the impression I got when a comment of mine was DELETED from this site yesterday. I guess it wasn’t welcome or valid or was too left-field. {The comment was not deleted, but one part was because it was not relevant to the post and contained an allegation that could not be substantiated, Grant}
How’s this for a suggestion – have Labour call for the amendment of the Legislature Act to remove Parliamentary privilege. In the spirit of political openness, make it impossible for MPs to eviscerate the personal character and professional credibility of private citizens while hiding behind a shield of legal immunity. {balance deleted, see above. Consider this a warning, if you persist, there will be a suspension or ban, Grant}.
That idea isn’t too left-field is it now?
Self-quote:
I note that in the UK David Cameron is campaigning right now on a platform that includes a proposal for a Parliamentary Privilege Act to “clarify the law”.
This is a great idea, Clare. Thanks for inviting input.
Here are a few ideas:
1. MPs and staff should have to register interests. There seem to be too many conflicts of interest happening around government these days.
2. MPs and staff should have to register what hospitality they receive from organisations. I’m not saying they shouldn’t accept it, but people should know they accepted it.
3. Third party lobbyists should be registered along with their client lists. This is required in the US and Australia, although the Australian version is pretty toothless. We need to know who is pulling whose strings and what they might be paying to influence policy.
4. Stop the loophole in the current interest register that allows MPs to hide interests in trusts. If someone has an interest in a company, farm, organisation or property, the interest should be declared and clearly identified regardless of where it sits. Just giving the trust name is useless for transparency.
5. Binding referenda are ok for somethings, like what system of elections we want or do we want to be a republic, but don’t go too far down that road. One only needs to look at California to see the financial mess referenda can make and how referenda can be used to discriminate against minorities.
6. Open Parliament to the OIA. Seems to have worked where MPs expenses are concerned.
7. Limit the amount any one donor can give to a campaign and make donor information available online so that the average person can find out who is funding what. This should be for all campaigns, including for referenda.
Axis:
Yes, agree 100%.
Oooh, public event
How about talking to those not Lab converts, as all you will hear is WHAT you want to hear, not what perhaps you should hear.
For me a total review on tax and readdresing the system – it IS broken, and listen to the impartial advice – give broard outline and Labs view on things then let the task force work within your confines.
Link Social Welafare and tax – My big beat why should 2 families on the same income get the same WFF and yet if one has 2 incomes vs single the 2 income has more disposable income, there is a difference!!!
Fix issues – Leaking homes, 2nd tier finance coys, govts “stealing” money from PAYE & beneficaries in the guise of power price hikes etc. If you cannot fix (I think Leaky homes is way past this) admit dont play politics you look very hollow in substance.
Unlike previous elections have a plan for NZ and the means of achieving and your varying manifestos should dove tail into this. Remember Team NZ if it will not make the boat go faster we don’t want to hear about it.
Finally get out of Wellington (Not on majic bus rides) even to hostile country just because there are some right leaning people do not discount their ideas.
Further tinkering WILL destroy this country.
And to complete my rave, ask for an oponion and LISTEN, Listen, listen. Then when the TV mike has been taken off then you can comment in private about what you heard!!
“How about talking to those not Lab converts, as all you will hear is WHAT you want to hear, not what perhaps you should hear.” – Hey
we represent a section of society too! 
Let me get this straight: I’m being threatened with ban from participation in a discussion of #OpenLabourNZ because, Grant, you don’t like the example I use to illustrate an important political point? Does that not strike you as ironic?
{No, you are being threatened with a ban for posting material unrelated to the post and making unstantiated allegations. You will note that your comments have all been posted. Grant}
Spud- you are part of society o o , I would be surprised if you and others do not already have the ear of Lab. They do have to hear from otheres and in some cases the ugly truth may come out, as somethimes your closest friends are unwilling to tell you how it sometimes really is. Also it may pay for you and others to grap the ear of the Nats as you may have something that they could also utilise or at least offer an alternate perspective.
Herodotus – spread the word then, to non labour converts as you call them (a few already post here anyway) and they can comment. This is ONE vehicle (I assume) Labour is using. I certainly dont take this venture to mean it’s the only forum they will operate in.
Herodotus: Doesn’t that Textor crowd do something a bit like that? They ask a focus group what they do like about say the Leader. Then they float an idea about what they don’t like and then arrange public repetitions focussed on the fear of what they don’t like or that they fear. Or something like that. (Only from memory “The Hollow Men.”)
But you might have a point that what the non-supporters think is very important.
I have Nat voting friends and relatives.
I want a say just like everyone else.
Oh the gloating
This is ONE vehicle (I assume) Labour is using. I certainly dont take this venture to mean it’s the only forum they will operate in.
I hope that they have dramatically altered what Lab did in the last 4 years. As there was and still is from those that we talk about politics of that there is still a major disconnect with the masses Politics appears to be less and lessa bout the vast majority and how difficult over the last 5 years it is to survive, and that includes many “rich” families that fall within the top tax bracket. Yet there is no understanding just chuck another $0.10 +(GST) onto fuel to pay for roading in Auck. But at that stage petrol increased from about $1.10 to $2.20/l, interest rates went up to over 10% (Res Bank Act was not working and still doesnt), power went up as did the exorbitanat profit (Returned back to the govt) and tax creep, dairy yet we got nothing back there was no empathy displayed = failure to connect for me.
Herodotus, serious questions. Do you feel connected with National, and if yes, in what way/s?
IanMac – you hit a nail on the head. This Govt appears to be totally revolving around a PR measurable response. It’s one thing to be “in touch” with “the people” whatever the heck that means, it’s another to be framing everything to LOOK like it’s in touch with the people while in fact, eroding those people’s right to consultation and power.
That’s my concern anyway, that there is this public veneer/facade carefully orchestrated while in reality, with each week a new erosion, of our control, as an electorate, over the big decisions.
Of course I may be paranoid… I dont trust many politicians.
I feel less unconnected with Nat at the time of the last electon. Also the Nat MP made themselves available at street side meetings, the only time I saw the belated Lab canditate was at the only meeting involving some of the hopefuls, he had no idea of the markup of the community. I also thought Nat had a plan, Lab to me appeared devoid of any concept of what NZ required and how people were hurting and not notice was taken, to me all was in their plan to buy enough votes to stay in power i.e. student loans. I also did not know what Lab stood for there was a disconnect with values of old that Lab stood for, and finally the discounted 20 hrs for childcare another manipulatioon of language utilised by Helen
Tracey finally being lied to by M.Cullen from being told NZ could not in 2005 afford tax cuts and how bad and void any party was to promise such cuts were for NZ then being given a tax cut from the same man!!
I am sure that in some time in the future Lab will regain favour with me BUT there has to be something of substance from this party. Remember in 08 the Res Bank Act was the greatest thing out a feew months in opposition now we are told what limitations this act has and the damage it has and will cause. At least NZ1 got that one right.
Sorry finally when we were overflowing in money for the 1:8 women who are unfortunate to experience breast cancer that the reconstruction was after 2005 not being funded by lab govt.
http://www.breastcancer.org.nz/reconstruction.htm
1.) All research done by ministries and their advice to the minister to be put up on the internet in an easily searchable database. We shouldn’t have to use an OIA request to get the information we paid for.
2.) We need to seriously look at the tax system. As it is rich people get away with paying less tax than the poor and that is unacceptable.
3.) Trusts and businesses need to make all their financial data and interests publicly available. It’s hard to hide the scams when everything is open.
4.) Businesses and trusts shouldn’t be allowed to donate to political parties. They’re not people and they’re not voting so why do they need a say in our politics?
5.) A serious look at our socio-economic system. Higher inequality is proof positive that capitalism is a failure.
“2. MPs and staff should have to register what hospitality they receive from organisations. I’m not saying they shouldn’t accept it, but people should know they accepted it.”
NOt so sure this is relevant?
I agree with Draco re the OIA – we should not have to get such info under OIA, and MPs should give info within the timeframe and not stall. All advice from ministries should be transparent – too many hide behind rubbish aspects of the act – eg: protected under ‘free and frank’ clauses.
Not sure this is the right place, but some policy on how Lab will work with other parties to agree to agree on the important things – so they dont get messed with each time there is a change of govt.
I agree with Draco that the assumption should be that everything gets published, with only sensitive information (and quite a high bar for that) not automatically being published online.
For example, why aren’t NZTA’s board papers online? Why don’t we know the discussion that goes into decisions about why hundreds of millions of dollars go into this project and not that project? An obvious place to start.
@ Herodotus and SHG
Thanks for your participation. Please keep commenting in good faith. We want your opinions, just don’t want abuse and accusations, because they’re distracting from the substantive issues. We may not agree but we like the discussion that’s happening and we are listening.
Thanks everyone, I will continue to summarise your views and keep posting them. As well as searching for content on other blogs and news sites. This is the beginning of a good open discussion.
Another post coming on Sunday to set out some guiding princples, though you are already heading in that direction yourselves.
Clare
Make the new policy suggestion forum identification verified i.e. must supply a real name address, phone.
Then where to start?
Many of the checks and balances, such seperations of power, that were put in place to prevent the tyranny of a few over the many have been worked out and infiltrated by slaveminded exploitive elements that have now turned them against the many.
I give as an example a recent OIA reply I received from RBNZ and Bill English re our monetary system:
RBNZ-
9- Could you please tell me if, in New Zealand, a “new” mortgage at issuance, before it becomes tradable, is loaned to a borrower by a registered bank, is that mortgage created as a debt book entry account, not anyones existing savings, but an electronic debt book entry creating “new” money?
We are not entirely sure of the meaning of this question. However, it is worth noting that only the Reserve Bank has the ability to create “new money”.
This question is unclear and needs to be rephrased if it is to be answered.
Yours sincerely
pp Mike Hannah
Head of Communications
followed up -
Regards
I recently received a reply, 21-12-09, to an official info request ref No 3855680v1.0
It was PP Mike Hannah.
I wish to know who actually researched it, wrote it and what position in the RBNZ structure that they hold?
Cheers
Iain Parker
reply-
Dear Mr Parker
In response to your question, what we have provided is the Bank’s answer, not any particular individual’s. I am one of a limited number of people authorised to approve and sign public responses on the Bank’s behalf. My name is provided as a point of contact, and I will direct questions if necessary to a wide range of advisers.
Yours sincerely
Mike Hannah
Head of Communications
Board Secretary
Reserve Bank of New Zealand
PO Box 2498
Wellington
Bill English-
9. Could you please tell me if in New Zealand, a “new” mortgage at issuance, before it becomes tradable, is loaned to a borrower by a registered bank, is that mortgage created as a debt book entry account, not anyone’s existing savings, but an electronic debt book entry creating “new money”?
The creation of a new residential mortgage will generally result in new money (bank deposits) being created. The bank grants a new loan to a purchaser, who uses the cash to buy property from a vendor. The vendor then may spend or save the proceeds boosting deposits in the financial system.
You also ask for a list of the names of the officials who contributed to this reply. I am withholding these names in full under s.9(2)(g)(i) of the Official Information Act — to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the free and frank expression of opinions.
You have the right to ask the Ombudsman to review my decision.
This fully covers the information you requested. I hope you find this information useful
Yours sincerely
Bill English
Minister of Finance
—————-
It wasn’t until 1982 we gained the right to question govt with any obligation to answer. Many of the answers provided are those of advisors. I believe in the interest of transparancy any reply researched by MP’s themselves should come with source footnotes, any not provided by themselves should automatically come stating who provided it and footnotes of sources.
I alledge the above has seen our Government heavily influenced from behind the diplomatic curtain without the wider knowledge of the electorate.
Another so-called check and balance seperation of power supposed to prevent tyranny of the few over the many that I alledge has been turned on its head is the public sector hiring and firing process.
The Minister of State Services basically rubber stamps the recomendations of the State Services Commissioner in regard to CEO appointments to government ministries, the appointed CEO then becomes independently responsible for hiring and firing below them. It is repeated practice for The State Services Commissioner to hire an international executive recruitment agency such as Hudson Global Resources to recruit the CEO.
In many cases local government CEO’s and CFO’s are appointed by the State Services Commissioner by the same process.
In our times of heightened economic turmoil of the last half century we have had appointed as State Service Commissioners individuals who’s ideals it was common knowledge were very openly, Chicago Way, unfettered direct foreign investment freemarket, I alledge(detailed evidence in link at bottom) it is hard not to conclude that these people have appointed people down through layers of local and national public services who’s actions make it very hard to judge if their interests were conflicted that of the national interest.
We need full public disclosure of who is involved in the hiring of who? We should not have to request under OIA a list of external consultants and contractors to find out who is doing the hiring and firing of our public service sector. It should be automatically freely available on record somewhere, in order that in the case where an MP appointed Minister of State Services might not be fully financially literate to know when she is having the wool pulled over their eyes, a more fully financially literate member of the wider public might be able to give them the heads up.
Sadly for Labour, such was the case when I questioned the then Minister of State Services, Annette King, as to the hiring and firing processes, including the role of Hudson Global Resources, she stated in her reply that Hudson Global Resources played no part, yet when I received, what they would give me free of charge, a report of external contractors and consultants, there was Hudson Global Resources first cab off the rank. Please have read the link, given what we already spend on core public service sector, the amounts of money being further paid to foreign transnational executive recruitment agencies might not be money that well spent given what could be claimed the conflicted interests or inaction of regulatory enforcement of a number of appointments refered by them.
I reiterate at this point, I am not an enemy of the Labour movement, don’t believe Annette King as Minister of State Services, or the entire Last Labour Executive, were fully co-operating with these individuals as the Douglas, atleast until Lange woke up to what he realised he had unwittingly been part of, and Richrdson dominated party executives were doing, just that sadly when the opportunity came the dominent Labour executive that emerged weren’t fully financially literate enough to impede the progress of the corporate raiders little more than a tiny speed hump to a semi-trailer.
A transparent freely available data base of all of the above processes and who is involved would once again allow into the process the wider public knowledge that it might assist elected MP’s in area’s they are not fully literate. Because I would imagine that what you have not learned before you are lucky have to be selected as first among equals to get there, there would be little chance in the busy schedule of parliamentary process for further personal indepth research?
http://publiccreditorbust.blog.com/2009/03/18/just-who-does-the-hiring-and-firing-in-our-public-sector/
Another reform I would like to see is an amendment to the Local Government Act 2002 requiring a pecuniary interests register before elections, i.e. same as Parliament…
Jeremy – is there a requirement in the Act for local govt office holders to publish and update their pecuniary interests?
That the New Zealand Bill of Rights become superior law; legislation passed by Parliament can be struck down by a judicial mechanism if it is found to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.
I see this as a basic safety valve for a Open and transparent government. That citizens know and understand they have these rights as part of a “democratic community” and that a government or court cannot repress.
Thinking about the last election, why Labour lost, and what could be done to improve the public image.
1. On controversial issues like the ‘anti-smacking’ bill, give MPs a conscience vote. Whether or not such a bill passes, show that it’s democracy in action, not just people doing what their party tells them.
2. Don’t try to control people – lead by example. The Labour administration flew a lot of Ministry for the Environment staff all around the country to tell people about climate change. Not exactly a good look given that air travel is one of the worst offenders. Why not use technology and arrange video-conferencing instead? Sure, it’s nice to meet people in person, but in this case there was a great reason for not doing so.
3. Understand the kiwi psyche. We’re a DIY bunch, we also have the Maori example of communal ownership, and early settlers desire to break with the tradition of landed aristocracy controlling everything. Kiwis are also great small business people. Maori quickly learnt to trade, and early settlers had to create their own employment, as it was the only option. In other words, DIY means too much government intervention in people’s lives isn’t welcome, but Maori and early settler traditions mean selling off all our assets to private ownership isn’t kiwi either. Support for small business rather than big business or workers needs to be top priority. Too often small business gets caught in the crossfire between unions and big business. Big business can afford expensive lawyers, workers have unions, but small businesses don’t have anyone, and often work harder for less.
4. Don’t assume Labour knows best. (This is a great start calling for public discussion) Shortly before last election, I remember being reeled off a whole list of great achievements of the Labour Government by the local candidate. Hardly any of them applied to me and he didn’t think to ask me if they did. I actually like the guy personally, I remember doing a folk music item with him once, but I couldn’t vote for him because I perceived an arrogance, and inflexibility about his position.
In stark contrast, around the same time, I met a rough and ready guy in a small town in Brazil who was running for mayor. Although I was just a ‘gringo’, he was happy to listen to ideas I had, examples of how things work here in NZ.
5. Stuff the media image! If people want someone who can put it on for the camera, they’ll vote John Key. Notably he doesn’t actually say too much. He just shows up in the right spots at the right time, and says nice things, lets other people do the grunt work, and if he sees it’s making too much of a bad impression steps in and ’saves the day’, although probably supported their efforts all the way along. It is quite a clever strategy, but is becoming a bit transparent. Some of us want to know what politicians actually stand for themselves. Even “I don’t know” is sometimes more honest than a sweet smile. For sexed-up drama we’ve got Shortland Street, for leadership we need people who don’t try to hide behind spin smokescreens.
6. Since referenda tend to be non-binding, have more of them, and at least take notice of what they say even if not adopting them completely. Since they’re non-binding, a cheaper electronic voting method might make sense. Give everyone with an IRD number a pin and a chance to vote online – (Most public libraries have internet so even people who don’t have computers could vote)
Sure, some people who wouldn’t get to vote normally might get a vote, but if it’s non-binding it doesn’t matter, and overall you’ll get a good picture of public feeling, and it shouldn’t cost a fortune to implement.
Ditch the commercial imperative for TV one and fully fund as a critical component of an open democracy. Refocus on Local and National News and decent political analysis, go back to the BBC style roots…inform people beyond the sound bite. Work to increase the time span of the media/news cycle to allow more for analysis and discussion.
You won’t inform all of the people all of the time but you will inform some of the people all of the time.