Would like discussion to be around how government should perform on OIA requests.
Is the issue about resources and priorites? It’s interesting to me as a new-ish MP that getting information out of government can be so difficult.
I think that should change.
Hat tip: @atnorightturnnz (twitter)
I’ve discussed the issue of how Ministers should perform here and here. My attitude is that this has been core government business for 28 years, and after that much time there’s just no excuse for being late. The Government knows how to answer requests in a timely fashion. It knows how to issue extensions where that is not possible (DPMC is absolutely scrupulous about it, for example). Even if Ministers do not know these things, their PPS’s should, and should organise their office accordingly. The failure to do so can only be seen as a deliberate political choice designed to thwart the intention of the law. And that is something they need to be held to account for.
My request to the Minister of Transport was WEEKS late and when it came had everything that could possibly excluded under the act omitted… Very, very troubling that a Minister that didn’t even stand for an electorate thinks he can be so unaccountable…
I suspect you’ll get similar results if you compare how long Ministers take to reply to Qs for written answer.
Unfortunately the Parliamentary website only shows the date a Q was lodged, and not when the reply was (eventually) received from a Minister. Ministers are required to respond within 6 working days but I know in Gerry Brownlee’s case it’s more likely to be weeks.
I’d be interested to know whether Labour MPs find this a problem? Is the 6 working day limit something the Speaker should be enforcing?
Are the Nats (disgracefully) just taking a leaf out of the previous Labour Government’s sttitude to OIAs??? Serious Question. Of course they should be anwsering the OIAs in a prompt and timely and complete fashion. But I do recall that delays etc was a Labour tactic – and now are you just getting some of your own medicine?
Perhaps – Ministers on both sides should learn how to use them properly.
Remember a couple of days before Xmas (and when Key was out of country) last year when labour logged more questions on some portfilios than had been logged 2 years when you were in power – that was just an abuse (esp as most of them were cut / paste) – just to score points to say that they were not answered in time.
Don’t hide stuff that public need to know and hide stuff that public don’t need to know / but hide stuff that should be hidden
As a completely anonymous worker in a govt ministry, OIAs are generally delegated to junior workers. Poor filing practices, both electronically and physically, are a factor.
However, it’s the same people doing the OIAs under this govt as under the last one.
Jeremy: I’m only looking at the most basic performance measure: timeliness. Quality of the answers is more difficult to assess (and in some cases is a matter of judgement). The Ombudsmen’s complaint stats are the closest measure we can get there, but they’re muddled by traffic volume, and by the fact that most people don’t complain.
Monty: I have no stats on what Labour did in office, but I’d expect a similarly dismal story of non-performance. And regardless of who is in office, its wrong.
H Roy as former associate defence has a few exclusions, to be expected.
What does Brownlee need exclusions for? A third of J Carter’s are excluded, what does he do again???
I’m shocked to admit this but Spud is actually right
There’d be certain information the public doesn’t need to know
Tracey: Since you’ve obviously looked at the post, I’m somewhat surprised that you didn’t bother to read the notes under the graph. “Excluded” is about poor record-keeping, nothing more. Any request which did not have a received date, or had obvious typos in the dates (sent before it was received and vice versa), or which had been withdrawn or cancelled by the requestor or which was noted as not being an OIA, was excluded from the analysis. It has nothing to do with the content of the requests or of responses – I didn’t ask for those, and that is not what is being assessed.
Mea Culpa. That will teach me to snatch a few minutes and not give it my fullest attention… I did actually go look at Coleman and Carter’s portfolios too. Given the definition of excluded I have no surprise to see Mr Carters result
“I’m shocked to admit this but Spud is actually right” Oh yeah
That feels good 
!
@kaukapakapa, it doesn’t help either that Written Answers do not go online for three working days. (Standing Order 373(3)).
But at the moment, there are over 690 overdue Questions, where answers were due between 10 and 25 August (25th was five working days ago)
Opposition will say it’s because Ministers are lazy / gameplaying. Ministers will say it is because, for example, Annette King lodged 850 questions to Paula Bennett in August alone.
These includud many on the formula
Annette will doubtless say she has to ask these incredibly detailed questions because of this sort of answer she got to written question 18138:
Sooner or later, the nettle of the Questions for Written Answer system will have to be grasped. At this rate we’re on track for 40K+ before the House rises for Christmas.
Lodged in 2007: 20,847
” 2009: 22,920
Lodged in 2010, to date: 27,555
There’d be certain information the public doesn’t need to know.
And the OIA recognises this. Section 5 lays down the general principle of availability – “that the information shall be made available unless there is good reason for withholding it”. Sections 6, 7 and 9 lay out what counts as “good reason”, with the latter being able to be outweighed by the public interest.
And OTOH, the OIA does not forbid information being released. The Minister can always just release if they feel like it.
It cannot be for a Minister to decide what ought not be released, a Minister, in a timely manner should immediately refer a doubted piece of information to the Ombudsmen who in turn gives it priority.
No Tracey, it is for the Minister to decide. But then the requester (I/S and the like) have the right to complain to the Ombudsmen who then investigate and may make a recommendation.
@ I/S, myself and others who regularly make requests don’t bother making complaints to the Ombudsman as they take forever to look into it and always uphold the Minister’s decision…
Jeremy: that’s not my experience. I complain regularly, and frequently get decisions overturned in a timely manner. Complex issues of judgement take longer, and I expect them to, but where the Minister is clearly in the wrong (e.g. Nick Smith pretending not to keep records of his correspondence, or Paula Bennett saying its not held, and would be too much work, and its not in the public interest), then it usually takes one phone call from them to sort it out.
Of course, basing your argument firmly in the practice notes probably helps.
Hmmm, We might have to reconsider complaining then… I’m not to happy about some of the excuses Joyce used to omit information about public projects…
There’s some great discussion happening here. I’ve been unable t access computer all day so have been watching the comments come tbhrough. Hope you’ve read Grant’s subsequent post on Red Alert about taking these issues further. Please contribute on the OpenLabourNZ wiki at http://www.open.labour.nz
Changes do need to be made to the way the OIA operates to make Ministers more responsive. it’s a mindset issue. And I/S it’s good that you are doing this work to keep us accountable. Though we should just be accountable.