I am just staggered that Steven Joyce has said that he wants to withhold the Cabinet paper on broadband because he is concerned it will be misconstrued as reflecting bias.
One of my jobs as a political advisor in the PMs office was to have oversight of processing Official Information Act requests. We did look closely at the information that was being released, and from time to time we did withhold material. We did this on the basis of the criteria in the Act. If there was advice from officials that was free and frank and its release would stop them from doing it again, that is a reason. If there was information that might prejudice a commercial negotiation or was part of a confidential discussion then that was a reason.
Being worried how a paper will be interpreted is not a criteria under the Act. Steven Joyce is the maestro of the government’s strategy and spin we are told. Well that is well and good, but as a Minister he has to follow the rules of the Official Information Act. He needs to be held to account for this decision.
“it will be misconstrued as reflecting bias.” – I wonder why they would think that?
Unfortunately, the OIA leaves little in the way of punishment for those that break the Act, even if they Ombudsmen comes out on the side of the requester.
The truth is, Joyce can avoid releasing these Cabinet Papers if there isn’t a punishment in addition to the nonexistent penalties for failing an OIA request. So, his refusal to release the Cabinet papers has to be kept in the public’s attention. Keep on this issue Grant and Clare, let’s see if we can avoid Joyce giving the New Zealand public the ‘Brush off’ on this one.
yeah go after him. This is a precedent we can do without
To my mind, Joyce is simply saying that he is incapable of explaining the contents of his own cabinet paper, so will withhold it to save himself from being exposed as an idiot minister unable to justify to the public what he has told cabinet.
You make a compelling argument Jennifer.
This is another example of the need to strengthen the provisions of the OIA (when Labour is next in office?)
There are a lot of documents being withheld under the provision of “commercial reasons” which I think is also utter rubbish, as this is taxpayer money that is being spent, and the taxpayers have every right to know what “commercial” agreements they are paying for.
I bet it is not too far from the truth to say a lot of “commercial reasons” used to stop OIA releases, are to avoid admitting how poorly some “commercial” decisions are made.
One example where “commercial reasons” should be out in the public – Ministry of Health trumpeting their “win” with Microsoft licensing, which *actually cost them more money than they were previously paying*
I don’t know which alternative universe that is considered “a “win”, but in this current universe, it’s usually refered to as “a joke”.
This is outrageous. He has admitted breaking the law because to obey it would make him look bad. Will be interesting to see whether media support colleagues or Key’s spin team wins.
I’m looking forward to Labour amending the OIA to make Parliament fully accountable under the Act in it’s next term…
Mr Joyce, is the living embodiment of why List MP’s are a bad thing.
No one would vote him in as an electorate MP.
Chris Finlayson is another..
Joyce is not the only one to play this game – Tolley and her MOE are a prime example of exploiting the acts ‘rules’ – the so called free and frank excuse is well worn – and all it does is give people like the above mentioned MP and their minions an excuse to withhold information. Its time this was tightened up. And, I agree with Jeremy H here – but I am not so sure it will happen. Bureaucrats are notorious for protecting themselves – even when they know it is morally wrong to do so.
@Peter we might find out about that…
He is rumoured to be taking over Lockwood Smith’s electorate when he retires… He’ll probably win too, that is National heartland…
I tried to get information and was told for what I wanted the cost would be $149,000. At the same time the media requested Minister expenses, despite the commercial gain and ratings they have got from it, the taxpayer foot the $50,000 bill.
The front line people I deal with under the OIA, and I put in a lot of applications as part of my work, are courteous professional people, somewhere behind the scenes lurks the incompetence and skullduggery.
ONE reason I have to pay $146k fr the info I want is because the DBH is not digitised, it’s computer based record keeping is appaling with no search/filter facility. In addition WHRS Assessor reports are woefully inadequate in reporting both what they did consider and what they chose to dismiss, all of which should be digitised and searchable.
I cant afford the 149k but I can afford to ripe about it here. I suspect the lack of release is more often about covering incompetent record keeping than out and out deception, with Joyce being an example. These gys think they can do what they like as long as they arent faltering in the polls.
Political engineering is what they are doing, from Super City to Canterbury water, to this kind of refusal to release information they are changing the mechanics of our democracy by stealth. If folks were scared by what they call social engineering they should be frightened by this political engineering. Social engineers can be voted out, political engineers deliberately alter that mechanism making it harder to change what they do.
Finlayson’s response to the women seeking compensation for sexual assualt was appalling. Isnt this the government championing victim rights, fining criminals to build a fund for victims? I doubt a single person in NZ would begrudge a woman pack raped, including serving policemen, compensation.
He’s right about Susan Crouch, she has been given the right to carry on with her case BUT the law is against a victory, but does he have to be quite so callus and smug about it?
Another Minister indulging in double speak and mired in questionable ethics.
Joyce is showing is questionable ethics, I wont be punished for breaking the rules so I will break them
Finlayson over his mate the Judge
Key over the “it wasnt illegal I have a letters from my lawyer” assets
Heatley ove rhis holiday spending on us…
Key appointed Wirth (questionable judgment) and then took a while to dump him
YES, Labour over 9 years stuffed up BUT National campaigned on honesty, openess, change from the other guys, so the burden IS on them to be the change they promised…
It’s about time Labour hardened up at actually started to fight these ‘political engineers’ and their quislings in the PR department, formerly known as the parliamentary press gallery.
Agreed.
what the…. It doesn’t make sense. Nothing about what he is doing makes sense. Very strange.
Yeah, I’m not sure Labour exactly gets to trumpet its record of openness given some of the more ridiculous cases of “commercial sensitivity” we saw during the last government. You might be better than this lot, but that shouldn’t be hard for anyone who’s trying.
The gross plans to privatise more sectors of Govt and community will be commercially sensitive also.
Snippets can be seen in a range of press releases.
Trusting a banker “at the helm” must be asking for official misinformation, with or without ACT.