PARLIAMENT | PARTY | GRASSROOTS

Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘transparency’

Open and shut

Posted by Clare Curran on February 7th, 2012

Every time there’s a new government elected, each of the Ministries and departments provide their new Minister with a briefing on the policy issues and decisions required in their portfolio. They are called Briefings to Incoming Ministers (or BIMs)

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.

Tags: ,
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, Open government
8 Comments

Transparency around lobbying important

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 20th, 2011

I don’t think New Zealand politicians have anything to fear from more open and transparent rules around the activities of lobbyists. The lobbyists I’ve come into contact with in my short time as an MP have been decent people and shouldn’t have anything to fear from a more transparent system either. In fact, the natural suspicion that the secrecy around their current activity arouses would be reduced, potentially leaving them better off in the long run.

I’m pleased the Labour Party has decided to support the Private Members Bill introduced by Sue Kedgley at First Reading, should it be drawn from the ballot. The Bill does two main things. First, it establishes a Register of Lobbyists, to be administered by the Auditor General. Second, it requires the Auditor General to establish a Lobbyist’s Code of Conduct and ensure that it is enforced.

I’ve had a chance to have a quick read through Sue’s Bill and I think it’s a good start, although I’m concerned that it may go wider than necessary. For example, as I read it under the current wording of the Bill, a plumber who makes an appointment to see their local MP to complain that the registration fees imposed by their professional body are too high would technically be deemed to be a lobbyist and therefore be required to register as one or be in breach of the law. I think that’s going a bit far.

New Zealanders are fortunate that we have a form of government that is incredibly open and accessible. Anyone can make an appointment to see their local MP and I’d hate to see any moves to regulate professional lobbyists compromise that. But that’s a question of detail and I’m sure it can be worked through at select committee, should the Bill make it that far. This is certainly a debate worth having.

Tags: , , , , ,
Filed under: democracy, parliament
5 Comments

Transparency the best option

Posted by Clare Curran on June 18th, 2011

Am pleased and heartened to see that Rob at The Standard has outed himself as a blogger. Brave and wise I reckon.

I understand why some people blog under a pseudonym. I understand why some comment on blogs and in social media under one. It’s probably better all round if we were ourselves. Unfortunately, the world of politics encourages secrecy and intrigue, and can punish honesty and transparency.

I’m all for open-ness. Sometimes that may appear to be a naive position. But in the long run it’s better for us all.

If you are full of doubt, have a read of this. I think it’s the best example so far of how transparency reaps benefits.

Greg Jericho, also known as Grog’s Gamut is an Australian public servant, blogger, and journalist. He came to prominence during the Australian federal election in 2010 when Australian Broadcasting Corporation director Mark Scott referenced his blog during a speech.[1] He was subsequently outed by News Limited journalist James Massola, a move that provoked widespread condemnation and criticism amongst the Australian blogging community.[2] After a break from blogging following his outing, Jericho has resumed blogging and providing opinion items for other outlets, including the ABC.

I don’t like the way Greg Jericho was outed (I was in Australia when it happened) but I think the way he handled it was great.

Tags:
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, Social media, blogs, comms & IT
22 Comments

Lobbyists and Transparency

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 4th, 2011

Tracy Watkins has an interesting column in this morning’s Dominion Post about the rise of lobbyists and the lack of rules and transparency around them in the New Zealand political sphere. I agree with a lot of what she writes. Now unlike my friends and colleagues in the Greens, I don’t think a Minister’s decision-making is going to be swayed by a ticket to the rugby and a few sausage rolls, but I am concerned about the increasing number of lobbyists who seem to have unrestricted access to Parliament buildings and the lack of transparency around that.

I’ll be upfront right here and now and say that I’ve been to several sporting events at the invitation of corporate box owners, often joining MPs from other political parties. But I think MPs, and particularly ministers, need to be careful about which invitations they accept. For example, it would be a very bad look for Steven Joyce to be seen in a Telecom corporate box around the time he is making significant decisions on broadband. On the other hand, I can’t see there being any issue with National backbenchers accepting corporate hospitality from government banker Westpac. They’re not going to have any influence over whether the government banking contract is renewed anyway.

I think New Zealand has come a long way in recent years on issues around transparency. Our elected representatives are now subject to a quite stringent declaration of interests process, and some of the loopholes (for example the ‘annonymising’ trusts that Tracy refers to in her column) have actually been closed so that MPs can’t hide where they have their money stashed, unless they truly don’t know where it is themselves (in other words it’s in a blind trust, although I myself remain skeptical about just how ‘blind’ those trusts actually are).

However, I’d also point out that those who report on our activities aren’t subject to any such transparency, and I think that’s an area that we should also look at. I’ve met just as many press gallery journalists in corporate boxes at the Westpac Stadium as I have other MPs. Given they have huge influence over what the public get to know about the decision-making of elected leaders, why shouldn’t the journalists also have to be transparent about that? When journalists receive free travel, which they often do from the airlines, why shouldn’t they have to declare that? (I do acknowledge that many will put a small statement at the end of an article of someone else has paid for their airfares, but they are not obliged to do so by anything other than their own ethical standards).

With the government increasingly using military aircraft to get around the country and around the world, why shouldn’t the journalists who travel with them on those same flights have to be transparent about that? If we as the Opposition were to critiscise a Minister for using an airforce plane rather than a commercial plane, and the journalist covering that critiscism had also been a passenger on said military aircraft, surely their readers are entitled to know that?

I’ve had quite a bit to do with a number of press gallery journalists in my time working in politics and, for the most part, I think they’ve got incredibly high ethical standards. But I think most politicians do as well. If the fourth estate want to argue, as they do, that we can’t rely on a politician’s word and sense of ethics and we do, in fact, need more rigid and transparent rules around personal interests, why shouldn’t the same argument apply to those who report on our activities?

I think this is a really interesting area of discussion, and I congratulate Tracy for bringing it up. I’m looking forward to the phone ringing off the hook over the next 24 hours as her colleagues stampede to report my call of greater transparency on their part. Oh wait…

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Filed under: democracy, journalism, media
18 Comments

Crony Watch #2

Posted by Chris Hipkins on May 27th, 2011

A while back I asked why the NBR doesn’t run it’s ‘Crony Watch’ column anymore. When Labour was in government they were very quick to critiscise when anyone who had any connection to the Labour Party was appointed to any sort of board or committee. Strangely they haven’t been as vocal and vigilant since National came to power, but there are certainly plenty of examples they could be highlighting. For example:

  • John Key’s electorate chairman, Stephen McElrea, has been given a role on a working group selecting proposals for taxpayer-funded political documentaries about health, education, welfare and law and order. He is also the deputy chair of NZ on Air, who get to choose which Kiwi TV shows get taxpayer subsidies.
  • Richard Griffin, former press secretary to the last National government (and often confused for the former PM) has been appointed Chair of the Board of Radio New Zealand.
  • Former National MP and Cabinet Minister Roger Sowry appointed to the Board of the Electricity Authority and to Chair the Councils of two polytechnics.
  • Former National MP and Leader Don Brash appointed to Chair the government’s 2025 taskforce.
  • Unsuccessful National Party candidate, and next on their list, Conway Powell, appointed to the Health Research Council of New Zealand.
  • Alastair Scott, who unsuccessfully tried to roll John Hayes as National candidate in the Wairarapa, was rewarded with a seat on the Crown Health Funding Agency.
  • National’s candidate in Mt Albert, Ravi Musuku, was rewarded with a slot on the Human Rights Review Tribunal after being rolled in favour of Melissa Lee for the by-election.
  • Former National MP Ian McLean appointed to the Lakes District Health Board.
  • Another former National MP Margaret Moir appointed to the Podiatrists’ Board.
  • Yet another former National MP, Clem Simich, appointed to the Residence Review Board.
  • One of the authors of Don Brash’s Orewa speech, Michael Bassett, appointed to the Board of Te Papa.

I don’t think someone should be disqualified from appointment to a role just because they have been, or are, involved with a political party. But those appointments will always be, and should be, subject to greater scrutiny. That scrutiny should be no less just because it is a National government rather than a Labour one.

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: democracy
14 Comments

National backs their mates, again…

Posted by Chris Hipkins on May 26th, 2011

Last year the National government was roundly criticized for setting aside $4.8 million in the Budget to be allocated to the Pacific Development Agency (PEDA) without a competitive tender process.  Keep in mind that when first quizzed about it Bill English’s first reaction, as it so often is, was to deny the whole thing. It took months of investigative work by the NZ Herald to establish that in fact not only did English know all about it, it was inserted into the Budget at his behest and officials didn’t know what to make of it.

The NZ Herald also suggested at the time the funding was part of an English-inspired effort to secure greater support for National amongst pacific voters. In the end they were forced to back down and a competitive tender process resulted in PEDA missing out completely.

Did they learn their lesson? It seems not. This year’s Budget allocated $2.4 million to Parents Inc, once again without a competitive tender process. The chief executive of Parents Inc, Bruce Pilbrow, was the Deputy Commissioner of the Families Commission (appointed by Paula Bennett) until he resigned just two days before the Budget. Why wasn’t the contract put out for tender? When did Pilbrow find out Parents Inc was getting the funding?

At the very least it’s a bad look for the government to set funds aside for specific organisations without going through robust processes to ensure the taxpayer is getting value for money. It leaves them open to charges of cronyism and looking after their mates, but then again, there are plenty of other examples of where the National Party are doing just that!

Tags: , , , , , ,
Filed under: Budget, democracy
35 Comments

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

What were the other 3 trips?

Posted by Chris Hipkins on April 24th, 2011

John Key would have us believe that his jaunts on military planes and helicopters aren’t among the ‘nice to haves’ that Bill English says we’ll all have to learn to live without, but are essential to his ability to carry out his duties as Prime Minister. If that’s the case, then he won’t have any problem issuing a full list detailing his use of airforce planes and helicopters, including the important matters of state that he was attending to that justified their use.

Stuff reported last week that Key has used the helicopter four times in the past 3 weeks alone, including the now infamous trip from the V8 supercars to the golf club. So what were the other three trips? Looking on Key’s Facebook page, the possibilities are endless. Did he use Airforce helicopters to visit the Timaru skateboard park? Perhaps he used them to make a ‘cameo appearance’ at the NZ Shearing Champs in Te Kuiti?

The PM and other Ministers should be able to use the airforce where it is necessary to carry out their official duties. But there is a pretty clear distinction between attending to official matters of state and using them to jet between photo-ops that are clearly little more than campaigning.

Every quarter Parliament and Ministerial Services issue a breakdown of spending on air travel by MPs and Ministers, but those figures don’t include the use of military aircraft. That’s an anomaly that needs to be fixed. As a general rule, I believe that use of military planes and helicopters by VIPs should be disclosed and the public should be able to judge whether the matters that they were attending to justified their use.

Meantime John Key and his Cabinet should start practicing what they preach and stop splashing taxpayer cash on photo-ops for the PM. At the last election John Key chartered a plane so that he could flit from one photo-op to the next. He should stick to that approach rather than suck military resources into his campaign machinery.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Filed under: defence, democracy, national, parliament, perks
42 Comments

What happened to crony watch?

Posted by Chris Hipkins on April 8th, 2011

When Labour was in government the NBR used to have a regular column called ‘Crony Watch’ where they would chronicle any government appointments that had any sort of political connection. Strangely, since National came go power it seems to have disappeared.

I’m wondering whether this is because they don’t feel that the National Party appointing their own activists and funders to taxpayer funded Roles is cronyism, or is it just that there are now so many of them they don’t have room?

I’m not opposed to political appointments based on merit, you shouldn’t be disqualified from public service just because you happen to have history with one party or another. I supported Labour’s decision to appoint Jim Bolger to head NZ Post and I support National’s decision to replace him with Michael Cullen.

But National’s appointments should get the same level of scrutiny as Labour’s appointments. Are we getting value for money from Don Brash’s task force given the govt reject his recommendations before they even read them? (mind you, Key doesn’t seem to be a particularly big reader of important documents).

Will ACT Party candidate Graham Scott add value to the Productivity Commission. Is Jenny Shipley the best person go head one of our largest energy companies? Should Steven Joyce have given massive taxpayer loans to a company he used to own that operates in direct competition with a government owned enterprise?

Is it a good thing that Murray McCully has decided to abandon past practice and hand-pick appointees for overseas diplomatic roles? Will that lead to cronyism? Given McCully has just appointed a sitting National MP to what should be an independent role, it’s fair to ask.

These are all legitimate questions that the media would have been asking Labour in the same circumstances. It’s a shame different standards seem to apply when the Tories are in charge.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Filed under: Foreign Affairs, act party, inequality, jobs, national, perks
14 Comments

Limiting big money in local govt

Posted by Phil Twyford on December 11th, 2010

Campaign donation returns for the Auckland mayoral race were filed yesterday and Auckland Mayor Len Brown is taking a bit of heat here and here for channeling $499,000 in campaign donations through a trust. His unsuccessful opponent John Banks accepted $520,086 in anonymous donations.

I think there should be openness about donations to political campaigns. Local government electoral law needs to be changed so donations are transparent, there are sensible spending limits, and limits on third party campaigns.

The parties have argued over these issues in recent years in relation to central government but I don’t think anyone has worried too much about tightening up the rules for local government. With the creation of the Auckland Council the power and resources at stake make it essential there are rules to limit the influence of big money.

Local Government Minister Rodney Hide says he doesn’t want to see any transparency requirements.

To be fair to John Banks and Len Brown, they have both operated within the law. The National Party has a history of using secret trusts. It was pretty obvious John Banks would rely on big anonymous donors. Len Brown would have been tying one hand behind his own back if he hadn’t been willing to accept anonymous donations too. The rules need to be changed so there is a level playing field.

National should have included transparency for campaign donations when it passed the Auckland super city legislation, as well as a lower spending cap, and limits on third parties. Now would be a good time to review the Local Electoral Act to get this sorted out.

Tags: , , , , ,
Filed under: Auckland, democracy, local government
31 Comments

John Key is wrong

Posted by Chris Hipkins on November 16th, 2010

John Key has been totally wrong in his handling of the Pansy Wong issue. When questions were first raised in Parliament, he decided to personally attack Pete Hodgson rather than front up and deal with the issues. Now we learn that he has advised Pansy Wong not to front up and answer questions. That’s just not good enough.

Pansy Wong is answerable for her personal use of taxpayer funded international travel. She needs to explain herself. Refusing to answer questions makes it look like she is working with Key to prepare a cover-up.

Yesterday Pete Hodgson asked a fresh series of questions about the use of taxpayer funded out-of-parliament offices for private business interests. These are legitimate questions and she needs to answer them. If her taxpayer funded office has been used as the registered office for private businesses that is another clear breach of the rules.

John Key needs to show more leadership on this issue. It’s simply not good enough for him to advise her to duck for cover and avoid fronting. It’s also not good enough for him to claim it’s not his problem. He’s the Leader of his party. I know he prefers to smile and wave and have fun, but now it’s time for him to do some of the tough stuff.

Tags: , , , ,
Filed under: democracy, parliament
24 Comments

Does Steven Joyce know the answers?

Posted by Clare Curran on August 4th, 2010

Note: My question is at 1 min 10 secs

Steven Joyce today ducked a question in parliament on why his government’s decision to regulate mobile termination rates contradicts its plans to provide its new fibre network with a ten year regulatory holiday on the pricing of fibre.

Was it because he didn’t know what to say or because he just didn’t want to raise attention to the contradiction. It’s the first time I’ve seen him actually stumped.

The question put to Mr Joyce in the House today was:

Given his logical decision to regulate on MTR, what is the basis of his illogical decision to give a regulatory free pass to the coming new fibre networks

In ruling out the question Speaker Lockwood Smith also refused to allow the following question:

Given the Government’s conflicting role as an investor and regulator of the new network, how will New Zealanders who take up fibre know that you are putting their interests first?

I think New Zealanders, who want ultrafast broadband and want a new network which delivers benefits for them using $1.5 billion in taxpayer’s money, would like to know the answers to both those questions.

Labour is glad the Minister decided today to regulate on mobile termination rates. But we’re not glad that the government could now derail the goal of affordable and accessible broadband services for New Zealanders with news that Local Fibre Companies, the private public partnerships set up to manage the $1.5 billion broadband project, will enjoy a 10 year regulatory holiday locking out the Commerce Commission from reviewing prices for fibre available to New Zealand consumers.

Instead, fibre prices will be set by commercial contract to be negotiated with Crown Fibre Holdings (CFH), the entity set up to evaluate the bids to run the network, and proofed against review by the regulator for ten years – a situation that applies to no other network industry in New Zealand.

There is a real of a lack of transparency, confused governance and increasing uncertainty about how the decision is being made to spend $1.5 billion of taxpayer money. All the players are saying this. Industry commentators are saying it.

That’s why Labour has called for the Commerce Commission to have an independent oversight role.

Tags: , , , ,
Filed under: broadband, comms & IT
10 Comments

Broadband too important to muck around with

Posted by Clare Curran on August 3rd, 2010

Let’s see how much of this you agree with this.

New Zealand needs high quality ultrafast broadband. In principle, the goal of delivering this to New Zealand businesses, schools, hospitals and homes is the right goal.

Delivering high quality UFB is a core infrastructure priority for governments throughout the world and is in line with the US, Australia, Europe and many Asian countries. New Zealand is not leading, we are following many other countries in delievring on this goal.  It is likely to take (at least) 5-10 years to deliver.

Delivering high quality UFB is a complex undertaking to get good outcomes for our country. It requires transition for existing players. Including Telecom. But transition is about the whole industry not just Telecom and it’s a great pity that what happens with the UFB project and how it will be delivered, seems to be all about Telecom.

There is a view that Telecom is currently the most vulnerable telco in the world. I’m not sure about that, but it is important that Telecom can survive the next 3-5 years and make the transition. But it shouldn’t be able to demand the terms.

The next ten years are unknown territory for telecommunciations in New Zealand. The industry is poised to change forever and to become about fibre rather than copper.

Transition will likely require some changes to existing legislation, in particular the Telecommunications Act 2006.

Crown Fibre Holdings, the body charged with making a decision on the UFB contract, is an infrastructure company. It has no ability to determine a vision, no policies and no strategic element.

Telecom’s statement yesterday wanting to ‘integrate the UFB (overseen by CFH and a ‘co-investment’) with the Rural Broadband Initiative (a grant scheme being driven by the MED) and funded by the new look Telecommunications Service Obligations (overseen by the Commerce Commission) shows what a confusing regulatory alphabet soup the Government’s cornerstone broadband policy is becoming.

We need clear orchestration of all the elements in this process. It’s complex and it needs flexibility and transparency. It’s taxpayer’s money. That’s why it’s time to change the governance process.

And that’s why today I called for Telecommunications Commissioner Ross Patterson to be given an independent oversight role in the government’s ultrafast broadband (UFB) scheme.

Communications Minister Steven Joyce should now consider changing the governance process for the UFB decision and to involve the independent Commerce Commission ensure public confidence in the process. At the very least Steven Joyce should remove himself from decisions about Telecom’s requests for variations to its operational separation agreement with the government.

Dr Patterson has sufficient credibility and experience within the industry to bring independent oversight and objectivity into the process and to be mindful of New Zealand’s long term interests in developing our future in broadband.

Otherwise there is likely to be a cloud over the broadband decision. Whatever the outcome, how can the public have confidence that Telecom is not somehow holding our country to ransom with its bid to secure as much value for its shareholders as possible in securing the broadband contract?

“New Zealand’s interests are paramount, not the Telecom shareholders and the government should recognise this.

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, broadband, economy, infrastructure
20 Comments

Open policy vs backroom deals

Posted by Clare Curran on June 24th, 2010

I am one of those people that tends to take people and their statements at face value. Mostly.

So I’m interested to know whether this government stands by its claims to be transparent. Or whether it becomes captive to industry lobbying and backroom deals. If you believe what’s being reported today, you’d think there was a major backflip on the cards.

I’m prepared to give the government and the Commerce Minister the benefit of the doubt.

When Simon Power appeared before the Commerce Select Committee a couple of weeks ago I asked him whether he stood by his previous statement that software would be excluded from the government ’s  new Patent Bill.

He firmly stated “yes”. But added that there would be an SOP (Supplementary Order Paper) to “clarify the government’s intent”.

This is quite a big deal. I’m sure most of your eyes would glaze over if I explained the ins and outs. Here’s some background for the dedicated.

The point is that Simon Power, Minister of Commerce, has twice publicly said the government backs exclusion of software from the Patent Bill. The select committee recommended software exclusion because it said it will allow more innovation to our local software industry.

Why? Because computer software is like books, movies or music, based on a concept and should not be patentable. It would be like preventing anyone from using certain musical notes, or words, because they have a patent. Instead software should receive, as it already does,  protection under copyright. That was the select committee’s recommendation.

Today  it’s being reported that backroom lobbying by the organisation that includes major software patenters has resulted in the Ministry of Economic Development backing away from the Commerce Committee’s recommendation and instead redrafting the Bill along the lines of the European Convention.

The European Patent Convention on the face of it excludes software patents, but the European Patent Office has been granting them.

The purported flip flop has been revealed on an American blog post (fixed the link)  which reproduces an email from industry lobbyist NZICT Group CEO Brett O’Riley.

Neither NZICT nor Microsoft, one of it’s major members, put in a submission on this Bill at the select committee stage. The allegation is that  they were unhappy with the committee recommendation and have “gone around” it to try to undo it.

Do I sense another Section 92A situation brewing?

And more importantly, just how does policy and legislation get made? Do we do it after an open and transparent process via the select committee? Or are powerful interests able to sway the government’s mind afterwards?

Every organisation has the right to push its view. But this goes to heart of how laws get made. In the open or behind a closed door?

I reckon Simon Power’s word is pretty good.

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: #OpenLabourNZ, comms & IT
37 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

Govt lip service to transparency on ACTA?

Posted by Clare Curran on March 25th, 2010

A couple of days ago, PC World ran a piece where Commerce Minister Simon Power was quoted saying NZ officials were ‘pressing for greater transparency’ in future Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negoitations.

He disputed media claims that the negotiations were being held in secret, saying agendas, reports and summaries for each of the seven previous ACTA rounds had been published on the Ministry of Economic Development website.

“As with any negotiation, however, it is important that when working towards an agreement on complex issues, participants are able to exchange views in confidence. For this reason, the participants in ACTA have agreed that the actual text under debate should be kept in confidence between the participants.”

ACTA did not focus on the private, non-commercial activities of individuals and would not impact on the internet experience of the average New Zealander, Power said.

“ACTA will not involve cutting internet access, and internet service providers will not be made to filter or monitor their networks.”

I’ve searched the National Party website for a media statement saying how and when he will do that, but can’t find anything. Am a bit unsure what he means. I guess it’s easy to say “I’ll press for more transparency” and then come back and say”Well I tried my best but it didn’t work”.

And today, writing in Computerworld, Juha Saarinen asks whether ACTA is harmless or a horror? He writes:

Is the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) a harmless attempt to quietly harmonise intellectual property laws and enforcement around the world, or a threat to civil liberties that will require fundamental legislative changes to implement?

The views of officials and lobby groups differ widely on what ACTA entails.

ACTA negotiations will be held in Wellington 12-16 April at the Intercontinental Hotel, according to a leaked agenda document. There is widespread concern in New Zealand and abroad about what is contained in those discussions and who is pushing what negotiating positions. New Zealand is not a big player, but we have considerable amount at stake.

InternetNZ’s Johnathon Penney says the spirit of the treaty will have to be adhered to under international law, and New Zealand can’t enact legislation that contradicts ACTA. As it stands, ACTA is essentially an extension of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act or DMCA, according to Penney and introducing it will alter New Zealand law, especially the Copyright Act.

Simon Power needs to show New Zealanders how he will attempt to achieve more transparency in these talks. Not just pay lip service.

Tags: , , ,
Filed under: comms & IT, copyright, internet, trade
5 Comments

Young voters demand more two-way communication

Posted by Clare Curran on March 7th, 2010

Now this is very interesting. And right up Labour’s alley (sounds better when you say it than when you write it).

A  UK Hansard Society report – Parliament 2020: visioning the future Parliament – asking first-time voters, parliamentarians and parliament officials about their visions for a future Parliament found that all groups wanted to see Parliament using new technologies to more actively engage with citizens.

The top priorities for all three groups (first-time voters, parliamentary officials and MPs and Peers) were:

  • Greater use of new technologies
  • Interactive communication

The main concern of MPs and Peers was the modernisation of procedures in Parliament, and while parliamentary officials, MPs and Peers prioritised access to information, first-time voters prioritised:

  • Education and outreach
  • Transparency and accountability
  • Diversity of representatives

In the wake of the recent expenses scandals, this report follows a sea-change in British politics where the whole political system is now subject to a level of interest and scrutiny not seen before and this includes the inner workings of Parliament.

The recommendations were that Parliament:

  • modernise an institution that is steeped in tradition but sometimes constrained by its own history and culture;
  • provide information in more understandable and usable formats;
  • harness the potential of new technologies; and
  • better engage the public, particularly about how they can influence the legislative process.

Leaving aside the negative cynical stuff about politicians, this is heartening in that such a survey is conducted, that it may be taken seriously, and that people are articulating what they want: open-ness and transparency.

PS: In case you don’t know, Peers are Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount, and Baron. Not sure why they got asked (PPS: that’s meant to be a joke)

Tags: , , , , ,
Filed under: comms & IT, consultation, democracy, digital
2 Comments

Transparency and accountability

Posted by Chris Hipkins on February 5th, 2010

Nathan Guy wins the inaugural “Richard Worth award for transparency and accountability”. Much like his predecessor, Guy has consistently demonstrated a high level of skill in ducking questions and providing as little information about his ministerial activities as possible.

Late last year I poked a bit of fun at his expense when he answered my written parliamentary question about his priorities over the next 6 months by saying he needed more time to come up with an answer. He’s finally answered that one, even if it amounts to little more than a cut and paste from DIA’s Statement of Intent.

However, when asked any questions about briefings that he has received from DIA or his official engagements, he simply dismisses them saying they aren’t specific enough. It doesn’t seem to be a problem for his more senior colleagues, who regularly answer written questions listing the reports/briefings they have received.

Guy’s predecessor confirmed that the DIA has a database recording all the briefings he gets, so it would simply be a matter of extracting the relevant data, a job that would take no more than a couple of minutes. Why is he so reluctant to be open and transparent about what he is working on?

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

How things change

Posted by Chris Hipkins on December 23rd, 2009

Back on 30 December 2007 the Herald on Sunday ran a story about the Nats working over the summer. Here are a few excerpts:

[John] Key caused a few grumbles in National’s caucus before Christmas when he insisted his team would have a minimal break, and he expected them to be working their shadow portfolios throughout the summer.

Education spokeswoman Katherine Rich took him at his word, and, immediately after Boxing Day, she was hammering Labour for booming salaries in the Ministry of Education …

Similarly, National MP Simon Power stirred himself from his sun lounger to fire off an attack on the Department of Corrections for doubling the amount it spends on consultants to nearly $20 million of taxpayers’ money a year.

How things have changed in 2 years. Back when they were in opposition National MPs thought these were legitimate issues and were happy to work during the summer. Now that they are in charge, they’re outraged that the Labour opposition is holding them to account.

Tags: , ,
Filed under: national
19 Comments

Question Watch #3

Posted by Chris Hipkins on December 23rd, 2009

Well, a few of the commenters on this and other blogs have gotten a bit worked up about the opposition’s use of written parliamentary questions to hold the government to account. Some of the arguments are valid, for example, Tolley and Bennett have been asked 937 and 840 written questions respectively in the past month, so if they can’t answer them all before Christmas that’s understandable. But it’s not unreasonable to expect they would answer the ones that they could within the timeframe and then come back to the others later, as some ministers have done.

However, some of the critiscism just doesn’t stack up. There has always been a pre-Christmas surge in written questions because after parliament rises for the year no more can be lodged until the House resumes in February. The government seems to think it is OK to make major announcements 3-4 days before Christmas, so I’m not sure why they think they shouldn’t answer written questions during the same timeframe. Keep in mind that the opposition can’t formally question the govt on their most recent announcements till Feb.

Some have also argued that we’ve asked more questions of John Key on issues like housing allowances, ministerial cars and so forth than National asked of Helen Clark. That’s quite true, but we didn’t have the ‘Double Dipton’ debacle and the spectacle of the PM changing the determination on the hoof to make their illegal spending on self-drive cars legal. These are legitimate areas for the opposition to take the government to task. We’d be a pretty poor opposition if we didn’t.

I also think that some Ministers are looking like idiots by saying that they can’t get the answer together in 6 working days. For example, I asked Nathan Guy what his priorities are over the next 6 months. Apparently he needs more time to work on that. Seriously? He’s been a Minister since June, what has he been doing with his time? This guy is paid $200,000+ a year. I’d expect him to be able to rattle off a quick summary of his priorities in 6 minutes, forget about 6 working days! And he’s only had 42 questions in the past month, a fraction of some of his colleagues.

However, I’ll also give kudos where it’s due. I blogged yesterday about ministers not answering questions about Christmas parties. Later in the afternoon I received Corrections Minister Judith Collins’ perfectly reasonable answer: “The Department’s policy is to allow $20 per head as a contribution to one Christmas related function per area. Not all staff attend the function organised in their area, and therefore some funds remain unspent.” Full credit to her. Good to see some are still willing to be upfront.

Written parliamentary questions are an important part of the democratic system, as is the Official Information Act. Labour’s use of both mechanisms isn’t significantly greater than National’s when they were in opposition, so I’m not sure why their cheerleaders are getting so worked up about it. Perhaps they would rather argue about the process than the substance of the answers (yet to be given)?

Tags: ,
Filed under: democracy, parliament
17 Comments