Posts by izogi
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Polity: So who exactly placed conditions…, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
-
Of course, National and its hangers-on can easily change the law to do this all by themselves. Why they won’t is a mystery to me.
I'd thought a law change wasn't needed, as has been pointed out multiple times? In any case, if Cabinet added a flag (or replaced one) then it would be a direct and obvious contradiction to the Prime Minister's earlier statement that it couldn't be done without going back to Parliament for a law change. Therefore it "can't" be done without some way to save face and make it look as if the PM wasn't wrong or lying at all. The claim that support is needed from all parties plays into that narrative, for everyone who might want Red Peak added but needs an excuse not to lose their faith/trust in the PM.
All this running around pretending it can't be done "because Labour won't meet us" is a mystery to me, except that someone's probably decided it's an easy way to try and deflect some blame onto Labour, at the expense of doing something that might actually be meaningful for the referendum. Thus a $26m spend on something which much of the population thought was of dubious value has become an outright $26m spend on political game-playing by the government, sacrificing integrity of the outcome for scoring cheap political points. Whatever their thoughts on flag changing, opposition parties need to do what they can to hold the government to account on this mess.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to izogi,
I've only skimmed it, but as far as I can gather:
* The Chief Archivist (76) clarifies that text messages don't require retention if the content is transitory or of short term value, but retention is required for anything potentially of long term value or requiring action.
* The Prime Minister says (56) he receives large volumes of text messages which are routinely deleted for security. He says it's only minor matters, anything significant references material elsewhere which will be considered on its merits for record keeping, and he doesn't conduct substantive Ministerial business by text message.
* The Chief Archivist determines (57) that the Prime Minister is not fully aware of recordkeeping responsibilities, because messages should be disposed of with a record keeping mindset rather than a security mindset, but also determines based on available evidence (apparently being the Prime Minister's statement for the investigation) that there's no wilful negligence. It's someone else's fault for not giving adequate advice.
* Furthermore (57), it's likely that deletion is compliant because based on available evidence (again being the Prime Minister's statement for the investigation) the only messages being deleted (all of them?) are transitory and so likely authorised for disposal.
So, the conclusion of the Chief Archivist seems to be based on what the Prime Minister says he does, and appears to assume that there's nothing intentionally malicious going on which wouldn't have been made clear in the statement given for evidence. It doesn't specifically consider at the Cameron Slater allegations, and is based entirely on what the PM states his record keeping practices are.
That's probably fine if you trust what the PM says about what he's been doing, but as there's no verification of whether the Prime Minister was being honest in his statement, it's unlikely to do anything to satisfy anyone who doesn't trust him. Based on what I/S posted today, I hear gallery media's not allowed to reflect on the character or conduct of MPs because according to traditional wisdom they're so important that they couldn't possibly act corruptly in their roles, or something like that. Problem solved!
-
From Stuff 45 minutes ago: John Key cleared over deleted Cameron Slater texts
Prime Minister John Key broke no rules in deleting text messages, the guardian of the country’s public records says. Chief Archivist Marilyn Little has published a review of Key’s record keeping. She began the probe in November after Key revealed he binned texts from Dirty Politics blogger Cameron Slater. Little says Key received poor advice from officials. But his practice of routinely deleting messages for “security purposes” is “pragmatic” and unlikely to break laws surrounding public records.
[–snip–]
But Little did not directly address the destroyed messages between Key and Slater.
She recommends text messages to and from ministers in their “official capacity” should be treated as a public record. If it is “of short term value” then can be disposed of. But if the contents need action or are of “long-term” value then it must be retained and transferred to support staff for archiving.
-
Hard News: A cog in the Mediaworks machine, in reply to Hilary Stace,
but only in towns where the mayor is mildly left wing
Auckland… Christchurch… Dunedin… Invercargill.
I’m surprised they didn’t bring in Wellington. It seems to be a favourite for left wing council bashers of late, or maybe it’s just what I see from living here. What’s a current example of a right wing council? Or do all councils supposedly spend everyone else’s money 'irresponsibly'?
-
Hard News: About Campbell Live, in reply to Alfie,
How much did Campbell Live cost to produce compared with what's replacing it? Surely that must also factor into TV3's thinking.
-
Speaker: Are we seeing the end of MSM,…, in reply to Kumara Republic,
The wider issues also tie in with proposals from VUW’s Dr Peter Thompson for a “communications levy” to finance public interest broadcasting. Free speech is far too important to be dominated by the best free speech money can buy.
Well I hope something workable is soon figured out to encourage gathering of news instead of simply opining from behind a desk on stuff other people selectively push out into the open, or within shouting distance of the office. Gatekeepers only seem to be required these days when media actually bothers to try, and it seems to be trying less these days.
In the past week, I've been utterly frustrated by (lack of) coverage in one of my other hobby areas, of the Hopuruahine Bridge failure last week. Four people were extremely lucky not to be all dead, as would have likely happened in slightly different circumstances. It's probably the most serious catastrophic failure in the Department of Conservation's visitor infrastructure since 1995 (Cave Creek platform collapse which killed 14 people), yet there's been virtually no independent coverage or information gathering.
All first-hand information has channelled through DOC or Te Urewera Board media releases, plus a handful of interviews early on based on those releases. No media has gone to the site to even look at the remains of the bridge and consider an independent assessment about whether other structures could be at risk, even though there's free public access at the end of a road. No media has attempted to track down any of the victims, who are supposedly being "looked after" by DOC and the Board. And, shortly after it happened, coverage simply stopped, I suppose until the next official press release comes along for someone to write an opinion about.
-
The fines that Sam Lotu-Iiga has talked about aren’t fines, they’re just not paying them their performance bonuses. Bonuses which make up 10% of the contract. The other 90% is, contractually, untouchable.
It's really hard to believe a contract would have been written to protect the other 90% for Serco if Serco's been outright lying in the reports it was required to provide, though Serco lobbyists probably had a large hand in writing that contract.
Nevertheless given its repeated experiences overseas it's hard to imaging that Serco every anticipated the bonuses as being anything except, well, bonuses if it were able to swindle the government for long enough to keep them.
Does anyone happen to know if there were any other significant bids for running prisons at the time when the government was looking to start privatising their management and operations?
-
Hard News: Everybody has one, in reply to Mark Graham,
Tuned into Story for the first time last night
I properly watched a clip for the first time on Tuesday, which turned out to be the chap who was refused entry to Rockpool because of his non-gang face tattoos. (Episode link, it’s part 2.)
All they seemed to do was interview the guy about his tattoos, interview the bar manager who pointed at her sign and said (paraphrased) “I like tattoos but I’m allowed to judge him and can refuse who I like”, then went to another bar manager in Auckland who seemed to disagree with keeping people out based on any facial tattoos, then very briefly stated that the HRC has said it was okay to discriminate, before light oooh aah style chit-chat between the two hosts.
Is it all this airy-fairy? For a human rights story, some actual depth and analysis would have been nice. Instead they just presented what a bunch of people said, not consulting an independent lawyer to explain things, not questioning the HRC about its statement, not investigating the claims elsewhere that he’d offered to cover up the tattoos with makeup and still been refused. I hope it’s not symptomatic of everything they’re planning to produce in future.
-
Hard News: Everybody has one, in reply to James W,
When did anyone think Hosking was a journalist?
I think many people don’t, and some people don’t really care enough to think about it.
For me, the fact that he’s not a journalist is a symptom of the greater problem, which is that his singular opinion on everything has effectively replaced what used to be journalism. Now there’s much less of that journalism and analysis being channelled in front of people, and much more of Mike Hosking saying "I’m fine with all of this. Nothing to see here."
This aside, he also gets paid mega-bucks by his employers for spreading his opinion and I doubt he’s as innocent as he’d have people believe, so I have little sympathy for his taking some of the blame for the situation, even if it’s bigger than he is.