The same would not, however, apply if James' post were to be published as a newspaper column. This is strange.
Surely PA of all places is a "news media Internet site"?
And in any case, Jono and Ben spoof is absolutely fantastic: this sort of satire should only be encouraged, surely!
Yes - but what politician will vote to repeal a ban on satirising politicians?
What about the cover of the rugby magazine with John Key pretending to be an All Black? It is in every book and magazine shop and dairy across NZ. Surely that is an election advertisement. Much more so than a song or a former MP's dresses.
Slater often seems to be playing a politics-themed LARP (sorry to any Larpers reading) where the win-condition is to be as awful as possible.
And not in an amusing way where you laugh at how horrible it all was post-game.
Is a party only serious if it speaks to the centre?
Parties are only "serious" if they speak to the old and the rich.
and if he is signalling well ahead of time that he plans to release it with the clear intent of damaging the legitimate government of the day and also affecting the outcome of an election then isn't he skating perilously close to the old idea of sedition?
Could this not backfire spectacularly with another visit from large gentlemen in dark glasses coming to take him away for threatening the security of the state?
Under what law? Sedition was repealed in 2007.
Your Ombudsman link isn't working.
Bloody Ombudsman's website. Go to Liberty, search for "contractor", and look at Case Notes [W48879]. Its actually about a contractor of a contractor, and the Ombudsman upheld LGOIMA applicability because they were ultimately working for a city council.
"The Ombudsman's reference to section 2(5) of the Act is correct for independent self-employed contractors to the Ministry who are considered in a similar position to an employee; information they hold is deemed to be held by the Ministry. However NASCs are independent organizations delivering services to members of the public and while the Ministry commission's [sic] services from NASCs, they are not considered as independent contractors to the Ministry for the purposes of the Official Information Act. "
The Ombudsman disagrees. That's a LGOIMA decision, but the same principle applies to OIA.
Unfortunately, given the scope of your request, you'd be looking at a high charge or an administrative refusal. A narrower request which actually specified the information you were seeking would have more chance of success.
So true, and under this Government we are also unable to access information from the NASCs (Needs Assessment and Service Co-ordination agencies) contracted by MOH to ensure disability support services go where they are needed. According to the MOH the NASCs are community groups and not covered by the OIA.
They’re not. But NASCs are contracted by the Ministry of Health to perform certain tasks (identified here. Section 2(5) OIA states that information held by contractors in their capacity as contractors is held by the contracting agency. So if its anything to do with their contracted services (as opposed to, say, their internal staff processes), then the information can be OIA’d from MoH.
They shouldn’t need an Ombudsman to tell them that.
By contrast, there is no alternative regulator people can go to if their privacy has been breached by something written in a book.
Other than the courts, for breach of privacy.