Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Where information has been refused, you should ask for detailed grounds under s19(a)(ii), including the specific harm they believe will eventuate if the information is released. But it looks as if they're ultimately relying on the confidentiality clause, and that in itself is illegal as you can't contract out of the OIA (as explained in the Ombudsman's notes on s9(2)(ba)).
-
Hard News: Incomplete, inaccurate and misleading, in reply to Matthew Hooton,
I don't think Ede has at all. He was aways employed, as I understand it, by Parliamentary Services, in the Office of the Leader of the National Party. His emails are no more subject to the OIA or similar laws than Matt McCarten's. Which raises the question, of course, of why he didn't just use his parliament.govt.nz account.
So that would mean we have him for misuse of official information (which he had no right to access) then. Which do you prefer?
-
Hard News: Incomplete, inaccurate and misleading, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Yes. He's violated the Public Records Act.
-
Hard News: Garbage in, garbage out, in reply to Kumara Republic,
Another thing to consider: are journos, particularly the Press Gallery, really that scared of getting what Nicky Hager got if they learn too much about certain agendas? It could go a long way to explaining why they go for 'fish in a barrel' issues.
I think they're more concerned about spoiling their future career chances. Journalism depends on relationships, and its difficult to do if Ministers refuse to talk to you. And if they're planning to switch to being a Ministerial press secretary one day, its even more important not to offend their potential future bosses.
-
Hard News: Garbage in, garbage out, in reply to Mark Graham,
The modern approach to political management. It doesn't matter how bogus are the numbers used to provide support for your policy because by the time the true numbers are revealed, we've "all moved on...nothing to see here''... bullshit prevails.
Yes. To them, facts are just a rhetorical prop, not a basis for or means of informing policy.
-
Obvious question: did the police - who get millions of dollars of new funding from this policy - lie deliberately, or are they just morons?
-
the decommissioning of its Wellington outside broadcast truck, the one that brings you Back Benches.
And presumably a hell of a lot of news as well?
-
Speaker: David Fisher: The OIA arms race, in reply to A S,
Just tacking an offence with a 2 year max sentence on it would introduce the spectre of transgressing ministers being kicked out of parliament for good, and it would spell career death for public servants too.
More importantly, it would give public servants something to point to to justify standing up to Ministers: "I could go to jail for this, and I'm not doing that for you".
-
Speaker: David Fisher: The OIA arms race, in reply to Steve Barnes,
Ministers are already subject to legal time limits, and to laws limiting their ability to withhold information. They routinely ignore both.
-
Speaker: David Fisher: The OIA arms race, in reply to nzlemming,
Wow. I have never seen one of those though I knew something like them must exist.
Try OIAing one of yours. It might be interesting.