Just thinking about it - isn't an OIA meant to be the method of communication of last resort.
David's post tracks the change leading to it being used as first port of call.
But trying to fight for OIAs to be released earlier and with less political interference would seem to be fighting the wrong battle.
We should instead be fighting to open up the public service as a public resource at all times. The public service should, as a rule, be open access with exceptions few and far between. An OIA should only be necessary where an exception is open to question by the ombusdman.
I suspect it comes back to the idea of the government as a business and the PM as a CEO. Government should not be a business, we have private enterprise for that.
I suspect part of the change is due to that way our public service has been remodeled and restructured to match private enterprise. The business model, complete with highly paid managers and complex layered structures is inwardly focused. The goal is to benefit the business/department/SOE and that has very little to do with serving the public.
I consider myself a public servant (albeit with a wider view of public then merely NZ) heck most of my salary derives from tax dollars. How could I consider myself anything else. But the Institute I work for considers itself a business, we don't work for the public, not even for the funding agencies, but instead we are focused tightly on serving the industries our work tries to benefit and that relationship is a strictly business one.
We are managed by professional managers with no interest or connection to the work we do, no interest in serving the public, only an interest in meeting their KPIs. Little wonder they see requests for information as at best a distraction and at worst as a threat. And their attitude is passed down the pyramid to those with actual knowledge.
All that makes your job harder and results in you resorting to OIAs which in turn are treated as if they are live hand grenades.
But to be fair, there is not much confidence in the media. That loss of confidence makes it easier to dismiss or distrust requests for help. When the media are more interested in the latest fad diet than the latest health science why would you bother helping them, I mean they are only interested in the story that sells the most.
TLDR No trust in either direction any more, but that's just business.
At what point do Roughan's falsehoods become a problem for The Herald.
Isn't there some kind of code of ethics?
I think that so much of our issue with sex stems from the fact that we’ve separated it from normal human behaviour.
Yeah, I have a real bug-bear about this. You want to go to the movies with someone? You ask them.
I'd never go on one of those AirNZ mystery escapes for exactly this reason. Yeah I get some folks like the spontaneity and surprise but I like knowing and anticipation.
Or indeed, for the peace of mind of most of you, at all.
Not that I'm afraid ... well yes actually I am :)
the best they could do for NZ
What I actually wrote was
I think they could have done better but I don’t think for a second they were doing anything other than what they believed was the best they could do for NZ.
Misquoting is uncalled for. I'd also point out that the horticulture industry in NZ is more than just the business owners and also point out that much of the horticulture industry is made up of very small operations who would be as affected by this pest as the big companies.
so by that logic we should be trying to prevent aliens invading the earth.
If you don’t think Bart being right is at all likely,
I tend to believe governmental influence being used to suggest that the police intimidate journalists is significantly more likely than alien invasion.
Presenting absurd parallels does not help.
Because you can create a similar 2x2 logic equation that is absurd does not make what I presented less relevant, it is an utterly false equivalency.
The point is that suggesting this is political, or at the behest of the SIS or others, has massive implications.
That is precisely my point. You are arguing black and blue that there is nothing serious here at all, and I disagree with you.
Which is all fine and dandy.
But what you seem to be missing is the consequences, if you are right then no harm done to our freedoms, if I am right then our freedom is under serious threat.
If we do nothing and you are right then nothing happens.
If we do nothing and I am right then bad things* happen.
If we question the actions of the police and you are right no harm done
If we question the actions of the police and I am right we expose corruption and have the opportunity to prevent further damage to our society.
For me it's a fairly simple scenario, the only safe option is to treat this as a potentially serious threat to our society and question, investigate and challenge the police actions.
*for varying values of bad
It blows my mind just a little how very keen some people are to ascribe just, disinterested motives to the police.
Because the alternative is that we are not living in the open honest society we thought we were.
If you accept that this was harassment of a journalist to intimidate and dissuade him and other potential whistleblowers - by our police - at the behest of our government - then that is a truly scary proposition.
I totally get why some people react by trying to find some explanation that doesn't involve total corruption.
over your head there
Above sand level then ...