This year, some Ministers have chosen to withhold (or redact) substantial amounts of information in these briefings. The MFAT and Communications and IT portfolios are two examples. There are more.

To understand the importance of the BIM and the basis upon which information is withheld from public scrutiny it’s worth reading this thoughtful post from Lawyer John Edwards:

Briefings to the Incoming Minister – Going Backwards From Openness to Secrecy?

In the months leading up to a general election, officials start preparing their Briefing to the Incoming Minister (BIM).  In the months after the general election, these BIMs start getting released.

There are no strict rules about what goes into a BIM, and no special provisions about how or when they are released.  They are produced under a convention recorded in the Cabinet Manual that “when a new Minister is appointed, the chief executive of the department concerned must ensure that, as soon as the Minister takes up office, he or she is briefed on the department and the portfolio”.

They range in size and approach, from a comprehensive stocktake of what is happening in the department or Ministry to a manifesto of the ideological drivers of the officials favoured approach to the particular policy.

Edwards advises that:

Anyone who is interested in seeing more of the BIMs than the Government has seen fit to release should simply write to the Minister concerned, and if they stick to their predetermined position about the deletions, ask the Ombudsman to investigate.  Perhaps then we will have a clearer idea about the expectations next time around.

One. Two. Three.

I was hoping for an opponent on the other side of the House who would grasp that technology had the capacity to transform our economy. I wasn’t holding out a lot of hope that she’d take seriously the importance of the social objectives of providing more access to technology, other than to pay lipservice, which is pretty much what Steven Joyce did.

But I was pretty appalled today to receive the incoming briefing document from the Ministry of Economic Development to the new Minsiter, which sets out all the major policy issues that lie ahead and provides a list of the pending decisions and actions over the next six months.

Great tracts of the former (policy issues) were removed from the document under the Official Information Act.

When it came to the decision and actions required over the next six months, there was a gaping two page  hole in the document.

VOTE COMMUNICATIONS: BRIEFING FOR THE INCOMING MINISTER 2011

MED1245438 Page 22 of 34

MED1284612

PENDING DECISIONS OR ACTIONS REQUIRED IN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS

[Withheld under sections 9(2)(f)(iv) and 9(2)(g)(i) of the Official Information Act 1982]

blank blank blank………

I’ve talked to a few industry people about this today. It’s unprecedented I think. Highly unusual and you’ve got to ask what on earth is so secretive about Minister Adams’ workplan and pending decisions that they all need to be kept secret?

Remember this is taxpayers money that funds Vote Communications. The signs are not good that the taxpayers will get the opportunity to scrutinise how their needs are best being met.

The intro by MED to the briefing reveals that the three big issues are these:

• The roll-out of the Ultra Fast Broadband and Rural Broadband initiatives
• The free-up of 4G wireless frequencies
• Cross sector ICT initiatives in the public service

What can be so sensitive about these issues that the discussion and debate around decision-making can’t be held in public.

The previous Minister Steven Joyce maintained an arrogant and unresponsive approach to the public, and now it appears that Amy Adams may do the same.

When you make something secret you should have a good reason.  The public must be reassured that decisions being made by this Minister are not favouring commercial interests over the public good.

Hopefully an OIA will shine some sunlight on this.

He starts off by stating the obvious – that the next Labour government must focus again on employment – but then denies the right of members of the Labour Party to have policy ideas on how do do some things better and to discuss them.

He doesn’t like the idea that I suggest it is worth thinking about the tax benefit interface as we develop policy. And that every now and again I link to speeches and articles that have a different approach.

He suggests a conspiracy with John Pagani who I haven’t seen for nearly a month and haven’t had a conversation with for three.

And he suggests that Labour MPs should only be allowed to have one post a week. Channelling Whaleoil.

Well I’ve got news for Zetetic – people in Hutt South elected me and they didn’t do it with the expectation that a person who prefers to be anonymous would dictate what I say and how often.

Birgitta is an advocate for more direct democracy and some of her views are quite radical. I think they’re worth thinking about and discussing. I think the way we practice politics needs to change. I’ve never made a secret of that. It’s threatening to politicians and the parliamentary structures. But while there’s a lot of good in our existing structures, and most MPs work damn hard and are committed to what they do, there’s also a lot of bullshit that goes on.

People know that. I agree that MPs need more direct accountability. The review of MMP will no doubt throw up a few ideas. Constitutional change is inevitable in New Zealand. It’s a matter of when.

Having a real debate about how we could improve our democracy for New Zealand’s sake is surely a good thing.

Here’s a start. Birgitta wrote this piece in The Guardian in November 2011

The Dutch minister of internal affairs said at a speech during free press day this year: “Law-making is like a sausage, no one really wants to know what is put in it.” He was referring to how expensive the Freedom of Information Act is, and was suggesting that journalists shouldn’t really be asking for so much governmental information. His words exposed one of the core problems in our democracies: too many people don’t care what goes into the sausage, not even the so-called law-makers, the parliamentarians.

If the 99% want to reclaim our power, our societies, we have to start somewhere. An important first step is to sever the ties between the corporations and the state by making the process of lawmaking more transparent and accessible for everyone who cares to know or contribute. We have to know what is in that law sausage; the monopoly of the corporate lobbyist has to end – especially when it comes to laws regulating banking and the internet.

The Icelandic nation only consists 311,000 souls, so we have a relatively small bureaucratic body and can move quicker then in most countries. Many have seen Iceland as the ideal country for experimentation for new solutions in an era of transformation. I agree.

Iceland’s experience is fairly extreme. But their response to crisis has some lessons for us all.

I like the analogy of the sausage. Especially given it’s summer and we’re all eating a few no doubt

MPs are planning to consider whether freedom of information requests are being too widely granted, following a ruling that they should apply to private emails and even text messages between ministers.

The chairman of the public administration committee, Bernard Jenkin, is understood to be considering a select committee inquiry next year in the wake of the recent ruling by Christopher Graham, the information commissioner.

Graham ruled that information held in private email accounts by public authorities can be subject to FoI law if it relates to official business.

In the last term of parliament, Red Alert was a bit of an experiment in how NZ Labour politicians could communicate directly with the public and have some honest conversations about policy, issues of the day and expound our thoughts in general.

It was a bit ad hoc, which was largely a strength as the blog is pretty widely acknowledged as being real and honest. The voices on Red Alert are MPs. They aren’t paid staff. That should continue.

However, there’s always room for improvement and here’s a few preliminary thoughts from me. I welcome your constructive  input.

I’ve been given a new portfolio called Open Government, perhaps a first for any major political party as a formal portfolio. I’ve been doing a bit of research  and will write a piece in the next couple of weeks about the portfolio, its importance and what it can achieve. It’s unusual to have an opposition portfolio which doesn’t match up to a Government Ministry.  It should be noted that the National Government is most unlikely to actively promote open government, despite Bill English doing some good work in pushing for more open data in the public sector. Red Alert will be a vehicle for demonstrating how a Labour Government would promote Open Government.

Red Alert is no longer an experiment. It’s now part of the fabric of political discourse in this country. It may have also changed things a bit. I’d like to see Red Alert and Labour’s strong presence generally in social media become more focussed. As I see it our purpose is two-fold.

First, to continue to engage in direct conversation with New Zealanders about our thoughts and ideas. Second, for the medium to be a tool to build campaigns.

I’d like to see us concentrate more on the second. It will require more effort to work collaboratively across the political spectrum with those we can work with. It requires building more skills. And tolerance of differences.

However, there are some challenges. The biggest, as I see it, is  those who would deliberately use underhand and hostile tactics  to undermine attempts to demonstrate open-ness and a different way of engaging with New Zealanders. Red Alert’s tolerance will not extend to them.

Honest debate and disagreement is one thing. It’s an important part of democracy. Personal attacks, abuse and pack behaviours designed to destroy new voices and new ideas and a different way of engaging are another.

Red Alert is a vehicle for Labour’s caucus to communicate directly with New Zealanders. We know and welcome the scrutiny and sometimes criticism from the mainstream media. We also welcome the engagement with bloggers and commentators in the new media environment provided by the internet.

I believe that there should be consistency with new media  in the rules and protocols applied to mainstream media. Red Alert is just one of those new mediums. We are not journalists. Nor should we ever presume to be. But we have responsibilities in how we communicate. And we can show an example.

The voices on Red Alert are of elected politicians. People who believe that the only way to make change happen is to make it happen. I believe that that if politicians are seen to do things differently, then New Zealanders can begin to have more faith in us.

It’s worth considering that around a third of eligible New Zealanders didn’t vote in the last election. For any party. That’s something we should all be grappling with.

Chris Hipkins and Darien Fenton are the Senior and Junior Whip and Clare Curran is the Caucus Secretary and rep to NZ Council.

I might do a more considered post at some stage about the process but that requires more thought.