Posts by James Liddell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Serious question here: So it would have been better if someone in her office had just happened to pass it around the Press Gallery, on a non-attributable basis of course?
No of course not. I think a simple "not all of the information is in the public domain" line from Bennett would have been the most ethical way for her to proceed. If the journos want to make it a story, they can find out general entitlements and deduce what benefits the women were receiving.
Or perhaps she should have just gotten up in the House, made shit up under privilege and sat down again secure in the knowledge that there would be precisely zero comeback?
Which she did do in question time today.
-
But, if true, we're not talking about *requests* at all, but instead a kind of unlimited access with no record of it, which is, IMO, open to abuse.
My understanding is that the MSD database logs all queries and leaves an audit trail.
The usual way for a Minister to enquire about a particular person is to request a briefing from the Ministry, which would mean it would go through the usual briefing logging and preparation process, and be sent to the Minister's office in hard copy and email. But if the Minister demands info immediately (i.e. within 5 minutes), I can't see any departmental staffer insisting that she wait for a formal briefing to arrive.
The issue, IMHO, is not about whether the Minister should have the right or ability to access information about individuals within their portfolio. The issue is about the Minister having the judgement to know when to request information, and how to use that information ethically.
I think that Bennett was well within her right to find out the women's situations from her Ministry, and pretty much any former (and current) Minister and their advisory team would do the same thing. But choosing how to use that information is where Bennett's judgement is lacking seriously. You just don't release it publicly in that way.
-
If Paula Bennett has a computer terminal in her office that gives her access to all beneficiaries' details, does that mean she can check names of people commenting in blogs like this, see whether we are beneficiaries or get any other welfare assistance, and release our details if she feels like it?
The Minister has the right to see any information she wishes about her portfolio. It's her and her staff's role to determine whether it is ethical or not to request info about individual cases, and whether it's legal to release it. But usually, what the Minister requests, the Minister gets.
-
Of course you can.
Not only that, but there's nothing in the Privacy Act will stop them releasing it to you.
Yes, but I can't imagine any Dept releasing that, given that privacy is a ground for withholding under section 9(2)(a) of the OIA.
-
The problem is that when the Minister demands information, it may not always be clear what it is to be used for, and it may be very difficult for a seconded public servant to refuse an improper and abusive request.
It'd be one ballsy private secretary who refused to provide a Minister information when s/he demanded it, regardless of the propriety of the request or end purposes for which that information was requested. And I imagine any refusal by the staffer would no doubt result in being sent back to the Department forthwith.
It will be interesting to see what course of action Peter Hughes takes here. Surely he'll have to investigate whether the staffer broke the rules around accessing confidential information.
-
Well, they could certainly replace Paul Hutchison (or is it Chris Auchinvole), with his pre-hersed plummy "ohhhhh..." whenever English digs up the "latest" from 20 years ago.
I thought that noise emanated from Nick Smith and Tony Ryall.
-
The government forced the junior doctors into strike action mid-2008.
That's a bit simplistic, Angus. A lot (and I'd argue most) of the blame for strike action should be laid directly at the feet of Deborah Powell, head of Contact Negotiation Services, and acting on behalf of the junior doctors. Her behaviour left a lot to be desired during negotiations. And it was a far cry from the constructive engagement of Ian Powell (Association of Salaried Medical Staff) who negotiated the settlement for the Senior Doctors without strike action.
-
The death blow to the British industry - once the workshop of the world - occured when they returned to the gold standard and created an over-valued currency that destroyed what competitiveness was left in the British economy.
Quite why this lesson seems to elude New Zealand, where our economy has suffered a two decade long de-industrialisation to satisfy the whims of what is now a discredited and fraudelent financial - sector escapes me.
We all know that it was actually the fault of teh laydeez inserting themselves into the policy debate:
-
Yes, Rod Oram. I'm saying it more in hope than expectation, but I'm saying it.
Don't hold your breath too long in expectation of that, Russell. Messrs Key and English aren't exactly fans of Rod Oram, and I can't see them consenting to such an appointment. They even refused all contact with him in the run up to the election. (Yep, politicians refusing interviews during an election period.) I think that may be one bridge too far for John Key's "pragmatism".
And that its findings will consequently amount to a version of Auckland City's "Birch Report" on a national stage.
Plus ca change, and all that...
Is it too much to ask that we should finally have a reasoned debate about encouraging investment in the productive sector and implementing a capital gains tax? 'Cos I certainly can't see that happening from this taskforce.
-
Yes, that's all from one episode. What must his mother think?
Well it's certainly quantity, but it's not really quality swearing. For that you can't go past The Thick of It. Armando Iannucci has a swearing consultant to whom he sends his scripts to make them more, um, colourful.