labour.org.nz | Facebook | Twitter | Red Alert Radio

Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘open and transparent government’

The law (of NZ) according to Kafka

Posted by on May 21st, 2013

The world’s gone mad! I hear that a lot. Now I’m starting to believe it.

In our own parliament there are a series of laws being introduced (under urgency) which are not able to be properly scrutinised because the advice from officials about their impact is apparently too sensitive for us mere mortals to behold. The long term ramifications of this are not good for our rights as citizens; our privacy and our ability to trust our government.

Andrew Geddis has written eloquently about this, in particular with regard to a  law passed at the weekend which laid out the (deeply inadequate) terms upon which carers could be paid to care for severely disabled family members. The basis of the legislation  is highly questionable but the ability to debate that and any legal risks has been curtailed by the removal (or redaction) of this important official advice from the publicly released Regulatory Impact Statement (or RIS). Keith Ng at Public Address said much the same thing only in less words and in more colourful language.

There has been a growing and disturbing pattern emerging in this government to blatantly redact important information from publicly available documents. The removal of important information from a Regulatory Impact Statement reaches new heights however as it effectively nobbles the Opposition members of parliament in being able to debate and vote on the law in our parliament.

The Disability Bill was the third Bill introduced into the House within a week which removed large tracts of critical information and advice from the Regulatory Impact Statement. I say “critical information and advice”, but we can only assume it was important and critical because we simply don’t know, as it has been removed from the public eye.

The passing of these laws are therefore unable to occur with the full knowledge of their impact on our supposedly democratic and open society.

The first was a Bill which allows the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB)  to assist the SIS, Police and Defence Force to spy on New Zealand citizens and residents, as long as it has the approval of the Prime Minister of the day.  Its Regulatory Impact Statement doesn’t even pretend to contain any real analysis of the risks for human rights, free speech and individual privacy. It boldly says there has been no consultation with the public. The hearings on this bill are very short and will be heard by a special select committee of party leaders. The likelihood is remote of all party leaders being available to hear submissions and then pay the required attention  to ensure good law-making about such an important and controversial matter in such a short time.

The second (which is linked to the first) is the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill which allow the GCSB and the Government extraordinary powers to intervene in a Telco network; from how it is designed, to how it operates in NZ. Should you be charged, then some evidence against you may be too secret (for you) to even hear. This Bill has two Regulatory Impact Statements: here and here. Both are heavily redacted.

In particular, look at page 9 of the  New Framework for network security which sets out the risks of the legislation: Unfortunately, the public is not allowed to know what most of those risks are because they are withheld. The period during which the public can provide submissions has been shortened from six weeks to five. We are now in week two. I urge everyone with an interest in our telecommunications frameworks and in robust democracy to submit.

It’s stranger than fiction. And immensely disturbing for our so-called Open Nation. Consider this:

In Franz Kafka’s The Trial; a man is arrested and prosecuted by a remote, inaccessible authority, with the nature of his crime revealed to neither him nor the reader.

His guilt is assumed, the bureaucracy running it (the remote inaccessible authority) is vast with many levels, and everything is secret, from the charge, to the rules of the court, to the authority behind the courts – even the identity of the judges at the higher levels.

Under the passing of these two laws, this could be our new reality. How did we get to this place? And what are we going to do about it?

 

Tags: , , , ,
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, comms & IT, democracy
7 Comments

The right to know

Posted by on July 25th, 2012

The Law Commission has just released an important and awaited report; The Public’s Right to Know: Review of the Official Information Legislation. I don’t think it’s online yet but keep trying

I haven’t read it yet, but I see that a main recommendation is more proactive release of information so that people don’t have to ask. This is an important advance.

The Commission is recommending a new statutory duty on public agencies to take reasonably practicable steps to proactively make official information publicly available. Professor Burrows stresses that the objective has been to avoid placing an unrealistic burden on agencies to immediately release large amounts of information.

The Commission recommends the Acts could be improved in a number of targeted areas such as:

 • revamping the Ombudsmen’s guidance about release and withholding, using decided cases as examples to provide more clarity

• redrafting unclear and confusing withholding grounds – in particular the so-called “good government” grounds

• new withholding grounds to better protect commercially sensitive information, and information provided in the course of a statutory investigation or inquiry

• giving advance notice to people and organisations whose private, confidential or commercial information is liable to be released

• adjusting the grounds for refusing requests which impose too great a workload on agencies • encouraging proactive release of public information

• new statutory oversight functions to support the legislative framework

• increasing the reach of the legislation by including additional bodies within its scope, either fully or partially, such as specified information about the courts and certain parliamentary bodies

Tags: ,
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ
4 Comments

Shhhh – that wasn’t the real BIM

Posted by on March 5th, 2012

National is planning a raft of changes around immigration that somehow seem to have been ‘left out’ of last month’s Briefing to the Incoming Minister of Immigration (BIM).

There’s a post-BIM BIM – a secret Briefing titled Issues and decisions for the first 100 days, which was prepared for new Immigration Minister Nathan Guy and Associate Minister Kate Wilkinson.

It reveals, among other things, Government plans to tighten up requirements for family members seeking residency in New Zealand, with preference to be given to the better off. Parents seeking residency in New Zealand to be with their children will face tougher tests according to the income levels of both themselves and their children. Parents whose families have higher incomes will go straight to the front of the queue in a  ‘Tier One’ category and face less stringent eligibility tests, while those less well off will be ranked ‘Tier Two’ and will face tougher conditions and longer waiting times.

There are already tough measures around the parent category.  They have to be sponsored and supported for at least five years. There’s a waiting list and defined numbers.  National made it even harder last year with its new “Parent Retirement Categories” which allows rich people to retire in New Zealand and be given preference over others.

The Adult Child and Sibling Category will be abolished altogether. These changes were signed off by Cabinet in May 2011, yet there was no mention of them in the publicly released Briefing to the Incoming Minister.

It  seems that only those with pot loads of money are welcome in our country.  We roll out the red carpet for people for them, to the extent we are prepared to change our laws and sell off our land.

There’s much more required for family reunification and good settlement outcomes than money, but that’s becoming the only criteria that matters.

But shhhh, it’s a secret, and you will only be told when the Minister decides you should be.

Tags:
Filed under: Immigration, Ministers, transparency
36 Comments

NZTE Focussed; Joyce Not.

Posted by on March 1st, 2012

NZTE has just presented a stellar annual report to the Commerce Select Committee. The new CEO Peter Chrisp and Chair John Mayson deserve credit.

Costs are down, focus is up, strategy is sharper. Performance measures are more rigorous.

NZTE’s emerging success gives the lie, however, to Bill English’s comment that there is nothing to be done about economic growth “it is what it is”.

And NZTE’s focussed success contrasts with the haphazard approach taken by Economic Development Minister Joyce’s to doing shady deals with individual corporates.

None of media (Canwest); Casinos (SkyCity) international film giants (Warner Bros) feature within NZTE’s strategy for target clients.

So if they are not prioirities for the experts, why is their Minister treating them so?

Likewise on FDI, NZTE is focussed on high-spillover investment that adds value to NZ, NOT selling farmland or assets that already exist. So why are National politicians doing the opposite?

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: Economic Development, Films, international, Investment
23 Comments

Inside the sausage

Posted by on January 4th, 2012

I’ve had a bit of contact with Birgitta Jónsdóttir. Would like more. She’s an advocate for open government. And I agree with her view that it is essential to make” the process of lawmaking more transparent and accessible for everyone who cares to know or contribute”.

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

Tags: , ,
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, comms & IT, democracy
15 Comments

Re-thinking Red Alert

Posted by on December 29th, 2011

As signalled in a previous post, I’m having a bit of a re-think about Red Alert. In particular, how to build on its strengths and address some of the issues that have arisen in the last couple of years.

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.

Tags:
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, democracy, Red Alert
41 Comments

Talking about open govt

Posted by on November 18th, 2011

Grant and I had a few things to say outside parliament today as we announced the release of Labour’s Open Government policy.

Not a flash PR video. Just a couple of real pollies telling you how we want things to be. The Labour way.

Tags:
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, #ownourfuture, comms & IT, democracy
7 Comments

It’s time to be more open

Posted by on November 18th, 2011

It’s no secret that many New Zealanders are cynical about politics and politicians.

For three years, Labour has done its best to do things differently and try different ways to bring politics and people closer together.

Red Alert is an example of that. Phil Goff took his caucus out to regional New Zealand to reconnect with New Zealanders. Most Labour MPs regularly use social media tools to build stronger relationships with people.

Today, Labour released its first Open Government policy. It’s a first for New Zealand because it was developed out of an open policy making process involving New Zealanders.

In 2010 Labour trialled OpenLabourNZ, a new way of Labour engaging with communities to seek their input by using new technologies and methods to increase participation drawing on similar processes used in Australia, the US and the UK. This policy is the distilled outcome of OpenLabourNZ.

It commits to producing a comprehensive “Open Government Charter”, based on a set of principles developed by Labour MPs in consultation with members of the public. It’s an important start.

People deserve to know the democratic process around parliamentary law making is sound. Hence, transparency of political offices is the core principle in the Open Government policy.

We believe New Zealanders understand a balance must be struck between transparency and accountability, on the one hand, and the need for the provision of “free and frank advice” to guide effective government and to protect the security and commercially sensitive aspects of advice.

But increasing people?s trust in the political process can only be guaranteed by ensuring a more open government. We believe that wherever possible; open is best.

Today I released our Open Government Policy in Wellington with my colleague Grant Robertson, who has supported me and helped with its development. Many of my colleagues have been actively involved in taking this policy through to fruition today. I thank them. It’s a big step for Labour.

It’s the start of a change in the way government and politics is conducted. I think for the better.

Tags:
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, #ownourfuture, comms & IT, democracy
4 Comments

Thinking outside the square #4

Posted by on October 26th, 2011

Even Singapore is going in this direction. As a many other developed countries. Pretty important. Must be authentic and not window-dressing. Open government is best. As much as possible.

Singapore PM vows ‘more open’ government

(AFP) – 5 days ago

SINGAPORE — Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong vowed Thursday a “more open” style of government following two elections this year that showed Singaporeans wanting a greater voice in government.

Speaking to the newly convened parliament following general elections in May, Lee said the government will share more information, welcome different views, reach out to diverse groups, and engage citizens more closely.

His remarks followed two elections this year in which the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) saw its popular support significantly dented as voters voiced anger over key government policies.

Apart from soaring housing prices and a liberal policy on foreign labour, voters also voiced their desire for greater government transparency and more public consultation.

Much of the dissatisfaction was voiced through the Internet, which is harder to censor and is now playing a major role in shaping public debate in a country where the mainstream media is perceived to be pro-government.

“We have to take a much more open approach to government and to governance, the way we organise ourselves, the way we conduct our affairs,” said Lee, the son of modern Singapore’s founding father Lee Kuan Yew.

The government will “welcome different views, reach out to diverse groups including critics, hear them, exchange with them, pick up ideas from them, persuade them,” he added.

In the May polls, the PAP lost an unprecedented six seats out of the 87 at stake and its share of the vote fell to an all-time low of 60 percent from nearly 67 percent in the previous election in 2006.

During the presidential elections that followed in August, the PAP’s de facto candidate won by a slim margin. His three opponents were all critical of government policies.

In his speech to parliament, Lee said the government will “share more information with the public,” including investments made by the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, one of two state-linked firms with stakes in several companies worldwide.

While not everything can be disclosed, Lee said that “wherever possible we will disclose more rather than less… We will review the rules and what we are putting out and I’m sure over time we will do progressively more.

“We need to engage citizens more in the decisions affecting them,” he added.

He said it was “necessary and healthy for our politics to adapt to changes in our society”, and it was important to stay in tune with the times, “because if you don’t adapt as a society goes, it’s brittle and one day it will break”.

Copyright © 2011 AFP. All rights reserved

Tags:
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, #ownourfuture
2 Comments

Integrity of parliament

Posted by on August 3rd, 2011

Simon Cunliffe’s piece in the ODT today is worth a read.

None of us are perfect but I reckon the integrity of the parliament is something to be valued.

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, parliament
7 Comments

Joyce caught red handed

Posted by on August 2nd, 2011

Steven Joyce has been caught red handed and is now attempting to worm his way out of reference to privileges committee.

I hope Speaker of the House, Lockwood Smith, who is a straight shooter, can see though Joyce’s ploy.

Yesterday I laid a complaint with Lockwood over whether Steven Joyce deliberately misled Parliament by not revealing the existence of a crucial letter from Telecom CEO Paul Reynolds on the ultrafast broadband project. The letter made reference to the possible structural separation of Telecom. He denied seeing any correspondence on the issue.

This morning, two years after that letter was sent and 21 months after he responded in the negative to a written question by me, he issued a corrected reply.

What a coincidence that his corrected response comes just a day after I laid the complaint with the Speaker.

I find it breath-taking that Steven Joyce can show such cynical disregard for accountability and transparency for Parliamentary procedure. He is treating the entire process with contempt. Whether it’s the Labour Opposition’s right to receive a truthful answer to a question, or the parliamentary process to take its course once a complaint has been laid.

For these reasons I am releasing both my letter to the Speaker and Steven Joyce’s corrected answer (see below).

I hope the Speaker holds Steven Joyce to account for his deliberate obfuscation.

Subject: 15840 (2009) Published – Communications and Information Technology – Corrected Reply

Question: What correspondence, if any, has he received or sent, listed by correspondent and date, about possible structural separation of Telecom?

Portfolio: Communications and Information Technology
Minister: Hon Steven Joyce
Date Lodged:23/10/2009

Answer Text: I have not sent any correspondence about the possible structural separation of Telecom. I have received one letter from Telecom dated 6 August 2009 where Telecom indicated they understood the Government had a preference for Telecom to structurally separate. Officials advised Telecom at the time that this was not the case.

Date Received:02/08/2011

Here’s his original response to the same question:

15840 (2009). Clare Curran to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology (23 Oct 2009): What correspondence, if any, has he recieved or sent, listed by correspondent and date, about possible structural separation of Telecom

Hon Steven Joyce (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) replied: I have not received or sent any correspondence about possible structural separation of Telecom

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, broadband, comms & IT, parliament
5 Comments

Would we ever be brave enough?

Posted by on August 1st, 2011

Last year Labour embarked on the first attempt by a (NZ) political party to develop an open policy. OpenLabourNZ began the process of developing Labour’s policy on open and transparent government. It was an experiment, but it signaled a change in approach.

This is a step further. I believe it’s exciting and heralds a new way forward to bring people and politics closer together.

Icelanders on Friday delivered what may set the template for other governments: a crowdsourced constitution.

A group of 25 citizens presented a draft of the constitution to Iceland’s parliament. The group, which is made up of ordinary residents, compiled the document online with the help of hundreds of others. The constitution council posted the first draft in April on its website and then let citizens comment via a Facebook Page. The council members are also active on Twitter, post videos of themselves on YouTube and put pictures on Flickr.

Iceland’s original constitution was created in 1944 when the country gained independence from Denmark. The country’s economic collapse in 2008 prompted calls for a rewrite with checks and balances to prevent a repeat of the financial crisis. The draft was due before the end of July. It may be put to a referendum without the input of parliament.

Iceland may be ahead of the curve on using social media to inform its new government, but it is not alone: Earlier this month, volunteers at a series of hackathons at Stanford University created a site where Egyptians could discuss their proposed constitution.

Hat-tip @Teh_Aimee on Twitter

Tags: ,
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, comms & IT, democracy
7 Comments

Can we work together on some things?

Posted by on July 4th, 2011

The internet was conceived on the ideas of equality and access. People sharing and making new things happen.

In the spirit of this, I participated in a panel discussion last Friday at NetHui in Auckland. The topic was  government and openness. What it might look like in 2020.

During the discussion I asked my fellow politicians on the panel, Nikki Kaye, National and Gareth Hughes, Green, if we could form a cross parliamentary group to see where we could find some commonalities on the important issues facing us in becoming more open.

They agreed. Our first meeting could be this week. We’ll keep you posted.

If you’d like to see the panel discussion click here

Tags: ,
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, comms & IT, democracy, digital, internet
6 Comments

The Hobbit – We have a right to know

Posted by on May 24th, 2011

Great piece by Brent Edwards on Morning Report this morning. http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport (scroll down to ‘Ombudsman backs Government secrecy over Hobbit deal’)

I listened and thought what has the Government got to hide?  $30 million of taxpayers’ money and an amendment to our Employment Relations legislation removing basic rights from all workers in the film industry under Urgency and therefore with no public input - surely we have the right to know why?

We have had a lot to say about this issue. Some examples – Darien Fenton’s April 2011 blog http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2011/04/12/hobbit-revisited/;  my January 2011 blog http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2011/01/06/honesty-and-the-hobbit//; Trevor Mallard’s  December 2010 blog http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2010/12/22/we-believe-in-the-right-to-unionise-some-people-dont/; Sue Moroney’s October 2010  blog http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2010/10/29/whos-next/ and Clare Curran’s  October 2010 blog http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2010/10/29/nz-law-brought-to-you-by-warner-bros/because it is an issue of sovereignty as well as an issue of (mis)use of tax payer money and workers rights.  Furthermore we are a long way from hearing the full story and there have been so many inconsistencies in what the Government has said throughout this whole sorry saga.

 For me the Hobbit saga is a clear example of the moral bankruptcy of John Key’s Government.   He still seeks to manipulate the facts as was evidenced by his appalling Budget speech which referred to Labour members as “Hobbit haters”.

Tags: ,
Filed under: democracy, Films, union, workers rights
18 Comments

WikiLeaks: sunlight the best disinfectant

Posted by on January 8th, 2011
This is the first of a few posts on WikiLeaks.

Labour is committed to a strong policy on open and transparent government based on core principles. One of those principles is that sunlight can, and should be, the best disinfectant.

In 2010, OpenLabourNZ was NZ’s first attempt to develop policy in an open way using online technology.

It would be foolish to say that all matters to do with policy-making and governing should be conducted in the open or available to public scrutiny. But Wikileaks has cracked open many issues that beg the question; why not be more open?

A disturbing new development reveals ongoing attempts to shut down WikiLeaks now involve an Icelandic member of parliament.

Salon, a US online news and entertainment website and the Guardian newspaper have reported that Birgitta Jonsdottir, Icelandic MP and former WikiLeaks volunteer, is fighting a US justice department attempt to get hold of her private messages on Twitter.

DOJ subpoenas Twitter records of several WikiLeaks volunteers

Last night, Birgitta Jónsdóttir — a former WikiLeaks volunteer and current member of the Icelandic Parliament — announced (on Twitter) that she had been notified by Twitter that the DOJ had served a Subpoena demanding information “about all my tweets and more since November 1st 2009.”  Several news outlets, including The Guardian, wrote about Jónsdóttir’s announcement.   

What hasn’t been reported is that the Subpoena served on Twitter — which is actually an Order from a federal court that the DOJ requested — seeks the same information for numerous other individuals currently or formerly associated with WikiLeaks, including Jacob Appelbaum, Rop Gonggrijp, and Julian Assange.  It also seeks the same information for Bradley Manning and for WikiLeaks’ Twitter account.

The information demanded by the DOJ is sweeping in scope.  It includes all mailing addresses and billing information known for the user, all connection records and session times, all IP addresses used to access Twitter, all known email accounts, as well as the ”means and source of payment,” including banking records and credit cards.  It seeks all of that information for the period beginning November 1, 2009, through the present.  A copy of the Order served on Twitter is here.

The sunlight in this case is on the DOJ’s intention, regarding the individuals named in the subpoena, and re Twitter, one of the world’s leading social media outlets.

I myself follow the WikiLeaks Twitter account and discovered this story a short time ago on Twitter.

My concern is whether there is an attempt to shut down, restrict or compromise the ability of a social media outlet to exist and for people who use Twitter to communicate freely.

I don’t think it will work. And I think that the attitudes of those in government regarding openness don’t necessarily reflect the attitudes of the people they represent. And it’s time for change.

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ
21 Comments

Redefining democracy: Open

Posted by on December 4th, 2010

Two things struck me tonight as I watched the TV news.

First, the story about youth suicide with the clear message that if the community doesn’t, can’t, talk about it, then it will keep happening. Common sense to me.

Second, the Wikileaks story. The TV3 piece wasn’t a particularly definitive story. But the message seems clear.

If social democracy can provide leadership and guidance in how humans interact, then could we be more open, less afraid and cut out a lot of the bullshit. I might get moderated. I might be naive.

There’s too much cynicism about politics. It’s a sickness.

Today’s ODT editorial was good. Mostly. But I disagree that the world will be less safe by being more open.

People want open-ness. They don’t want spin, they want to be to be told what’s what. No matter who they are and where they live.

It might hurt. It might mean arguments. But it’s more honest.

If diplomacy means whispering about each other behind closed doors,  I’m over it.

Could we redefine democracy. People?

Tags: , ,
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, comms & IT, democracy
74 Comments

Judicial Inquiry into SCF now urgent – NZ Herald

Posted by on October 20th, 2010

Fran O’Sullivan has written a very strong opinion piece on SCF in the  NZH here.

“The credibility problem that Feeley faces is that after four months investigating Hubbard’s smaller entities, he has still to make a decision on whether to file fraud charges against the SFO founder on that score.

When Feeley announced his initial Hubbard probe he went in with all guns blazing. But after several weeks of saying the SFO was close to making a decision, nothing has materialised.

Hubbard has major beefs with the process.

He has also taken issue with the way the statutory managers who have control of his own affairs as well as Aorangi Securities and other small entities are managing affairs. “It is like the way the Nazis treated the Jews; they grabbed all their assets under trumped-up charges. You have to wonder who the National Government will pick on next.”

There are too many layers of regulators, too may issues around the statutory management process, too many issues about the role of the Securities Commission, and frankly too great a contrast between the government’s handling of SCF and the plethora of other finance company failures, many with much more obvious concerns apparent to all.

One commentator to Fran’s piece says as follows:

“Just as intriguing. Why isn’t Feeley taking the same approach to Hanover, BridgeCorp, Hanover, Blue Chip, Hanover, Strategic, Capital & Merchant, and . Hanover? These are all prima-facie, far more obvious instances of self interested activity and related party dealings. Keep up the good work Fran.”

Or  is there something else going on?   Selective leaks from inside sources to settle old scores?  A sad attempt to bury a frail old man while he is still alive?

Of course we cannot know everything about SCF.  No-one does. 

Only a full, independant judicial inquiry can answer these questions.

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: business, commerce, economic, economy, south canterbury finance, Uncategorized
28 Comments

Open is the new black: new thinking

Posted by on October 16th, 2010

This afternoon at the NZ Labour Party conference there will be a new thinking workshop on OpenLabourNZ, Labour’s experiment in developing policy out in the open, involving anyone who wanted to participate.

The workshop will outline why and how OpenLabourNZ came about, what we did, the issues we encountered on the way, outline some of the main ideas that have been suggested and discuss what we do now.

A report has been produced bringing together all the material to date. Here it is. It’s pretty good. I hope you’ll read it.

Because the workshop hasn’t happened yet, I can’t predict the outcome. But here’s the basic premise:

Should government fear being more open and transparent?
Should the Labour Party fear being more open and transparent in the way it crafts policy?

No doubt there are some risks involved. But there are compelling reasons for more openness and transparency in politics and the way government engages with its citizens.

One of the most compelling is that while it might not be the natural inclination of government and many political parties to open up, it certainly is the inclination of the people they are elected to represent and to serve.

I’ll update this post later after the workshop. But this is new territory for Labour. It’s outside in policy. I hope we’ll use this experience to develop more policy. And I hope that out of this will come a damn good policy on open and transparent govt to take into next year’s election campaign.

Tags:
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, comms & IT, democracy
7 Comments

Can the Nats do “open”?

Posted by on October 6th, 2010

In 10 days at the Labour Party conference, a first cut at Labour’s policy on open and transparent govt will be discussed.

There’s been an attempt through OpenLabourNZ to generate real discussion and debate about all the issues that NZers  would like to see in such a policy. It’s been conducted largely online, but a public event in late August (livestreamed) allowed face to face discussion while hundreds beamed in from cyberspace.

A start.

The main thing is that the process has been open and transparent.

I’ve been musing about whether the National Govt has been thinking about this stuff. It seems they have a bit. Though just exactly what it all means is a bit of a mystery.

Computer World reported today:

The Government will announce its ICT plans later this week, after Cabinet signed off on Monday on “Directions and Priority for Government ICT”.

There are five key areas of focus:

- Cross-government leadership, based on the Ministerial steering group and a group of chief executives.

- More open and transparent data sharing.

- Integrated service delivery.

- Common capability and rationalised infrastructure, with the Department of Internal Affairs providing a central purchasing role for common capability.

- Efficiency and effectiveness. This will relate to the Treasury benchmarking study, known as Better Administrative Support Services, of shared services across 12 agencies.

Computerworld understands State Services’ strategic ICT role will be merged into DIA, which will lead ICT procurement.

Internal Affairs Minister Nathan Guy will make the announcement later this week.

That’s good. The cross govt leadership bit sounds especially promising. Though in order to be open, you kind of need to be “open”. And involve people. Wonder whether anyone’s been consulted. It all sounds a bit like “how to save money and get rid of people”.

And I wonder whether Steven Joyce is hiving off responsibility for the thinking part of his technology portfolio to Nathan Guy. Sounds like it. Not that important then.

If being open and transparent was really important, the PM would announce it.

Tags:
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ
5 Comments

Last chance to vote on OpenLabourNZ ideas

Posted by on October 3rd, 2010

Open Labour Logo

By 2.30pm Sunday, 7293 votes have been cast on 96 ideas on what Labour’s policy on open and transparent government should look like.

Those votes have been cast by 445 people who have registered at the ideascale site. If you haven’t already done so I urge you to register and cast your vote. To vote go here.

As previously noted, this does not necessarily mean they will end up in the policy, but we are taking your input seriously.

For each suggestion you can ‘vote it up’ (if you agree with it) and ‘vote it down’ (if you disagree). You can also leave comments on each suggestion. If you have a suggestion that isn’t there, you can add that too (please read through the existing suggestions so we don’t get double ups).

There were originally 63 ideas put up a week ago. Users have added extra ones.

We will close off the vote tomorrow midday-ish. After that a report will be compiled and a workshop on OpenLabourNZ will be held at the Labour Party conference in mid October.

Labour’s policy on open and transparent government will be released at some point after that.

Tags:
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, comms & IT, consultation, democracy, Labour Party, policy
13 Comments

« Older Entries