PARLIAMENT | PARTY | GRASSROOTS

Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘Official Information Act’

Are the Nats dodging the OIA?

Posted by Chris Hipkins on May 22nd, 2011

The Official Information Act is a really important part of our constitutional framework. Passed back in 1981, it turned the old approach on its head. Before then, information was kept secret unless there was good reason to release it. Now State information is publicly released unless there is good reason to withhold it.

Government departments and agencies have pretty good processes for dealing with requests for official information. An important part of that is making sure information generated is captured and stored in the first place.

The world has changed a lot since the Official Information Act (OIA) was passed in 1981, one of the most notable changes being the emergence of email as a significiant means of information sharing and communication. The public service has adapted and information transmitted via email is captured and released under the OIA when requested.

Recently I was told that some staff working in National ministers’ offices have been setting up Gmail accounts in order to get around the OIA and to ensure that their communications aren’t captured. If they are transmitting ‘official’ information through Gmail and aren’t releasing it when asked, they are breaking the law.

I asked John Key whether he had a policy on the use by staff of Gmail. He is the Minister Responsible for Ministerial Services, so if staff working in the Beehive are breaking the law then the buck stops with him. He answered my question stating “The question the member asks relates to staffing matters which are the responsibility of the Chief Executive.”

Frankly, that’s just not good enough. John Key has a responsibility to ensure that the staff working in the Beehive are complying with the law and aren’t hiding official information. If they are using Gmail accounts to get around the OIA, John Key needs to crack down on that ASAP. Failure to do so suggests they have something to hide.

Tags: , , , ,
Filed under: democracy, parliament, public services
17 Comments

Further Thoughts on the OIA

Posted by Grant Robertson on August 31st, 2010

Clare’s post earlier today highlighted the excellent job done by I/S over at No Right Turn in analysing the slow response from some Ministers to OIA requests. This is a topic I feel qualified to comment on having played a role in the management of OIA requests in the previous government.

Firstly it is important to acknowledge that Labour in government did not have a flawless track record in this regard, and neither did the National government of the 90s before that. I can remember when coming to work in the Beehive hearing the story of a National Minister who kept a pile of OIAs that were ready to be released beside his desk. If the person who made the request did not keep pestering the Minister’s office the OIAs simply did not go out. Clearly that is not good enough, but it serves to illustrate the point that while a Ministry or Department will often process the request within the timeframe, the blame for its failure to be released on time will often lie with the Minister and their office.

In our time in government the Ombudsmen did highlight a number of deficiencies in processing, and I can recall attending a couple of meetings about that. By the end of Labour’s term the Ombudsmen’s annual reports indicated an improvement in the processing of requests. But that does not mean that we should not be even better when we are back in government.

So, what to do from here? This was a major topic of discussion at the Open Labour event on Saturday. It seems to me that there are some short and medium term things to do

  • In the short term the National Ministers who have been highlighted by I/S need to step up their game. These delays are simply not on, and there needs to be some leadership from John Key on this.
  • Just as we are now seeing increased transparency around Ministerial and MP expenditure, there should be a regular release of information on processing times for OIAs. I am sure sunlight will be a good disinfectant in this case.
  • Looking further ahead I do think we need to move to see more documents pro-actively released, including Cabinet and Committee papers and background documents. This will actually reduce costs and promote efficiency.
  • There are other practical measures as well, such as tightening up on transfer requirements. The idea that a Minister or agency will wait til just before a 20 day period is up and then transfer a request is unacceptable.

I think the solution here is a combination of updating the law and better enforcement of current practice. The OIA still serves us well and gives access to information that other countries are still envious of. But it is not working as well as it could. I am sure a multi-partisan approach is possible, and desirable on this.  Perhaps making use of the expertise of Nicola White and others to lead the work?

Tags: , ,
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, democracy, public services
14 Comments

“Substantial Collation and Research”

Posted by Grant Robertson on June 17th, 2010

The Official Information Act is an important part of our democracy. It used to drive me insane as a Ministerial office worker, but  it is one of the key elements that ensures the accountability and transparency of government.  Another key element in this process is Archives New Zealand, and the Public Records Act that oblige the retention and deposit of government records.

Its with a sense of irony then that I am currently appealing to the Ombudsmen the government’s decision to decline my OIA request for documentation around the decision to merge Archives New Zealand and the National Library into the Department of Internal Affairs.   The State Services Commission (where requests to the actual agencies involved were referred) has declared that putting together papers on the proposals represents “substantial collation and research”, and has refused the request.  Other stakeholders report the same response. Instead they issued a Cabinet paper and minute, and some background material that was already publicly available.

This is just not good enough.  The proposal to merge Archives and Library into the DIA has serious potential constitutional consequences which have been discussed here previously.  From the Cabinet papers it is clear that both the Library and the Archives had serious misgivings about the proposal, and offered other options.   The public deserve to know more about the reasoning for this merger and the possible implications.

As has been reported the Official Information Act requests on Ministerial credit card bills came to some 7,000 pages and cost $50,000 to process.  Such is the price of democracy and accountability you might say.  But, in that context, surely the release of information about the merger of two small agencies into one large one could be managed?

As part of the OpenLabour process some people have raised with me a process whereby papers relating to a Cabinet decision are automatically released at the time of the announcement of decisions by Government or as soon as possible afterwards.  This deserves consideration. Of course there will be matters that from time to time might need to be witheld under the provisions of the OIA, but I think if the default position is that papers will be released it will make for a more transparent and efficient process.

Tags: , , , ,
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, democracy, public services
20 Comments

Education Standards – Who Are they For ?

Posted by Trevor Mallard on June 11th, 2009

Real education standards are very important. Good standards measure value add or progress rather than a simple pass fail hurdle. They require professional support to work. They won’t get this support if they lead to league tables in newspapers. Under the Official Information Act this is inevitable. We need a law change to prevent this happening. Together we can build a campaign to change the law and therefore give us a chance to have strong, high quality, meaningful and effective standards.

This blog is a bit like those on drug driving, mall opening and education ownership. It is designed to elicit feedback to help build policy.

We need to decide what education standards are for. In my view they are an essential tool in improving teaching and learning. Working well they can identify strengths and weaknesses of individual students, teachers and schools. Good assessment can be used to direct future learning for both students and teachers. It is a vital part of a feedback loop to parents, senior teachers and principals.

I’m a strong believer in formative assessment. As Minister of  Education I invested millions of your dollars building asTTle. It is a world leading assessment system. It is beginning to work as designed because teachers trust it. And it is a high trust model. Information is collected and shared on an implicit and sometimes explicit understanding that it will not be available for purient sensational and often meaningless comparisons by way of league tables.

Anne Tolley’s proposed standards won’t add any value to most schools. They look like they have been designed to fulfil an election promise rather than to have any educational benefit whatsoever. They measure hurdles that in some cases are very very low and in others are so wishy washy that there is room for tremendous variation in assessment between schools. Most importantly they don’t measure progress or the amount a child has developed over a particular period. That is they key measure of learning and thereby of teaching.

But it is no use consulting on that question until the fundamental one of “Who are they for?” is answered.

Because if they enhance teaching and learning, they will get professional support. If they lead to useless league tables and competition between schools they won’t. It is as simple as that.

I have had an informal discussion with the Ombudsman on the issue. He has made it clear to me if we want to protect the information and prevent the league tables the best approach is for parliament to do just that by changing the law.

I’m interested in your views. If there is widespread support for this approach (and remember the mainstream media will never support holding back tables that can dominate their front pages for two days a year) then I’m happy to build a campaign to get the law changed.

Tags: , , , ,
Filed under: consultation, education, labour
23 Comments

Transparency and accountability

Posted by Chris Hipkins on May 11th, 2009

Fronting up and answering parliamentary questions and Official Information Act requests is a basic ministerial function. Fundamentally it is about accountability. On that score the Minister of Internal Affairs, Dr Richard Worth, has failed miserably. Since December I have been trying to get information out of Dr Worth about what he has been up to whilst receiving his $240k a year ministerial salary. I’ve used written parliamentary questions and Official Information Act requests and he has stonewalled repeatedly. He won’t even answer questions as basic as one asking what reports he has received from his Department.

One would have thought given his recent troubles Dr Worth would be going to some lengths to prove that he had nothing else to hide. Could it be that he is embarrassed by his total lack of action since becoming a Minister? Does he think that he should be exempt from basic accountability requirements? Or does he have something to hide?

I’m pleased that John Key made a commitment on Breakfast TV this morning to investigate Dr Worth’s refusal to answer. I look forward to Dr Worth’s forthcoming conversion to the principles of openness and transparency following Mr Key’s intervention. If he isn’t willing to front up, he shouldn’t be a Minister.

Selection of Dr Richard Worth’s answers (PDF – 60K)

Tags: , , , ,
Filed under: national
8 Comments