It’s a tremendous bit of spin. The reality is somewhat different.

For the past 20 months, John Key’s ministers have acted in concert to block access to public information though the Official Information Act and written parliamentary questions. They’ve ducked and dived like sports cheats. It is not just the Opposition that has been thwarted. There is some excellent analysis on No Right Turn about National’s cheating.

Journos too have told me they are getting increasingly frustrated by National’s trickery.

In this context, I’m treating as a win for open government Employment Minister Paula Bennett‘s reaction this week to my media statement of a fortnight ago criticising her for burying bad news.

To recap, she was pinged for sneakily trying to hide bad unemployment data as the economy has slowed. As the jobs news got worse each month, the length of time before she would allow official data to go the Parliamentary Library got longer.

So I am pleased that she has been shamed, at least for now, into ending her dodgy practice. This week, on the same day as issuing her dishonest statement on benefit numbers for August (she said 6000 had come off main benefits – what she didn’t say was the situation had actually worsened again, with more than 8,800 people going on to main benefits over the same month), she quietly released to the Library the full summary of benefit stats for the month. You can see why she’s so shy, it’s pretty grim reading.

I don’t want to sound ungrateful, but whatever next? National Party ministers dispensing with their haughty contempt of the OIA and WPQs?

It’s now 8 weeks since I asked the questions, but alas no answers have arrived. The questions were legitimate questions asking him to account for the spending of his ministers at a time when they were telling us all to tighten our belts.

We saw last year that National Ministers do not practice what they preach on fiscal responsibility and the public deserves to know what they are spending, e.g. the Bill English rort to finance his family home and the last minute changes to let ministers use self-drive cars meant to help them serve their electorates in Wellington.

Labour answered these types of questions when asked by a National Opposition so what is Key hiding?

Here is a quick summary of the topics that I asked Key about:

• Pay rises for staff working in Ministerial offices (remember other public servants have a wage freeze)
• Use of VIP cars during National’s first year in office
• Refurbishment costs for ministerial offices
• Spending on gifts, beer, wine and spirits by ministers
• Purchase of self-drive vehicles and related issues
• Issues relating to Key’s changes to ministerial housing allowances

John Key talks a lot about transparency and accountability but it is all talk. The reality is neither he nor his ministers think that the rules that apply to others apply to them. Key’s ongoing refusal to answer basic written parliamentary questions just proves that.

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?

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)?

The Key apologists seem to have forgotten that National MPs used to routinely ask tricky questions of the then Labour government. One of their favourites was to ask about staff Christmas parties and presents. Most government departments do some sort of end of year function for their staff, so National’s questions were basically intended to find examples of where they’d gone a bit over the top so that they could shout from the rooftops about “waste”.

Interestingly, they aren’t so keen to answer now that the shoe is on the other foot. I asked a written question of each Minister that’s almost identical to one Brownlee, McCully etc used to ask and they have all come back with the same answer: “The question the member asks relates to an operational matter which is the responsibility of the Chief Executive.”

Interesting to note that when Labour was the government and National was the opposition the questions were OK, but now that National is in government they seem to think a lower standard of accountability should apply. In 2005 Annette King even went so far as to compile all of the answers into a handy little table for the Nats, so why are they suddenly ducking for cover?

So far John Key has replied to all of them with the same answer: “I am unable to provide the member with the information requested in the timeframe available. I will provide the member with the answer as soon as possible.”

All of the questions were lodged on the 8th of December, so he’s already had several weeks. In almost all cases there are examples of similar questions having been asked of Helen Clark in the past. I’m sure John Key isn’t going to argue that he should be subject to a lower standard of accountability than his predecessor, so I’ll look forward to getting his answers before he takes off for his holiday in Hawaii.

In the old days it involved dumping a pile of paper in the Clerks office.

The system is now totally on line. Problem is it doesn’t appear to have the capacity to deal with a number of people who like me work to deadlines. System alternates between dead slow and dropping out.

Not good enough.

Update  the Speaker has extended the deadline to 11am.

I’m making available here the answers to 12 written questions I lodged in mid November to Communications Minister Steven Joyce to try to elicit some more information about his new broadband scheme. Information I believe is in the public interest. To understand the context, here’s the media release he put out on the process for bidders to get a piece of the action on the government’s $1.5 billion broadband scheme.

I realise that to many people this won’t mean a great deal. That’s not the point of this post. I want you to see how a Minister does his best not to answer questions .  Gives you some insight into how government’s ought not to act. And I wonder what you think?

PS: Needless to say I have lodged more questions. And OIAs.All questions were sent to Communications and IT Minister Steven Joyce on 19 November 2009. The answers were received on 30 November.

1. Question: What concerns, if any, does the Minister have about the government’s ability to fulfil its promises relating to the roll out of broadband, following the responses of the 38 groups who expressed interest in participating in the government’s urban fibre roll-out through the Invitation to Participate process

Answer Text: None.

2. Question: How many of the groups who expressed interest in participating in the government’s urban fibre roll-out through the invitation to Participate process are publically-owned companies and which companies are these?

Answer Text: Please see my answer to question for written answer 18357 (2009).

3. Question: Which areas of New Zealand, if any, were not covered by Proposed Coverage Areas, in respect of the Proposals put forward by the 38 groups who expressed interest in participating in the government’s urban fibre roll-out through the invitation to Participate process?

Answer Text: The Notices of Intention to Participate did not specify proposed coverage areas.

4. Question: How many, if any, of the groups who expressed interest in participating in the government’s urban fibre roll-out through the invitation to Participate process are community-owned organisations and what are the names of these community-owned organisations?

Answer Text: Please refer to my answer to question for written answer
18357 (2009).

5. Question: Are any of the groups who expressed interest in participating in the government’s urban fibre roll-out through the invitation to participate process owned by the Government of New Zealand, the Crown in right of New Zealand, a State-owned Enterprise or a subsidiary of any of these; if so, what are the names of these groups?

Answer Text: Please refer to my answer to question for written answer
18357 (2009).

6. Question: How many of the groups who expressed interest in participating in the government’s urban fibre roll-out through the invitation to Participate process are privately-held companies and what are the names of these companies?

Answer Text: Please see my answer to question for written answer 18357 (2009).

7. Question: What areas of New Zealand were covered by Proposed Coverage Areas, in respect of the Proposals put forward by the 38 groups who expressed interest in participating in the  government’s urban fibre roll-out through the invitation to Participate process?

Answer Text: The Notices of Intention to Participate did not specify proposed coverage areas.

8. Question: Are any of the 38 groups who expressed interest in participating in the government’s urban fibre roll-out through the invitation to Participate process wholly based overseas; if so, where are these groups based?

Answer Text: Please see my answer to question for written answer 18357 (2009).

9. Question: How many of the 38 groups who expressed interest in participating in the government’s urban fibre roll-out through the invitation to Participate process are based in New Zealand and owned overseas?

Answer Text: Please refer to my answer to question for written answer
18357 (2009).

10. Question: How many of the 38 groups who expressed interest in participating in the government’s urban fibre roll-out through the invitation to Participate process are New Zealand owned?

Answer Text: Please see my answer to question for written answer 18357 (2009).

11. Question: Who were the 38 groups that expressed an interest in participating in the government’s urban fibre roll-out through the invitation to Participate process?

Answer Text: I do not consider it appropriate to provide any further detail regarding the nature of parties that provided Notices of Intention to Participate beyond those that are already in the public domain. There is a significant public interest in maintaining the integrity of the Invitation to Participate process to encourage the most competitive possible proposals.  The development of these proposals may be unduly influenced if proposers are aware of the details of other parties that may also intend to make proposals.

12. Question: What were the main issues that emerged from the invitation to Participate process recently undertaken as part of the government’s broadband plan?

Answer Text: The Invitation to Participate process is ongoing.  The Notices of Intention to Participate, which were due on 13 November, were a first step in which potential participants signalled their interest in the process and provided their contact details.  The Notices of Intention to Participate did not provide an opportunity for any issues to “emerge”

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)