Posts by Andrew E
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hide's 'perk busting" type antics have had the counter intuitive affect of making government hugely risk averse.
Why is that counter-intuitive Don? Isn't making government averse to initiatives that involve spending money Hide's aim? Wouldn't ACT prefer a sclerotic, unimaginative government doing the minimum it could 'get away with' to one which is activist, thinks creatively and unafraid to intervene where it could contribute something useful?
-
It's worth remembering that civil servants can give all the good advice in the world, but ultimately the minister decides, and that decision is often made for political reasons.
Yes, agreed Deborah. And that's fine if the accountability mechansims, including the OIA work. Then we can see the advice provided to the minister and the minister can publicly stand up and defend his or her reasons for departing from the advice. If that is for political reasons - effectively, they have different values from that of those advising them - so be it, and the public is enabled to make up it's own mind. I think this is how the system is supposed to work, isn't it?
Or as Judith Aitken put it in 1997:
"A large number of briefing papers to Ministers are now published. These include, for example, most of the briefing papers from departments to an incoming government. It is not unusual for Ministers to introduce policies which ignore or run counter to the advice of their officials. Where this happens there is often comment in the media that Ministers have not adopted the advice of their officials. Ministers may be called upon to justify their policies, which they usually do by reference to the democratic process and the need to take into account the wishes of their electors. The situation does not appear to be particularly embarrassing to either the Ministers or the departments involved. Indeed it could be argued that one of the consequences of the Official Information Act is that it has helped to reduce the politicisation of the public service by making it more obvious if advice is partisan."
If this is no longer the case, and the views of 'Public Service Manager' accurately reflect the attitudes towards the OIA within government, then we should ask what has occurred in the last 11 years to change the situation.
In any event, your description of how you handled OIAs when in the public service is laudable, but it's a far cry from the attitudes expressed by the original poster. What interests me is whether the more prevailing view within government is yours or that of 'Public Service Manager'. And if the latter, what can be done to alter it.
-
As Eddie Clark said above, this piece of writing is deeply worrying, if it is an accurate portrayal of how you view the OIA and how it has affected the agency you work for.
Several times in your blog post you make reference to media criticism and 'beat-ups', and they arise in this OIA context too. Have you and your colleagues perhaps considered the alternative, which is to confront the pathetic excuse for public affairs journalism that exists in this country? Demand a right of reply to set the record straight, and tell them that the reason why taxpayers fund the work of policy analysts is precisely to discuss options for solving problems in society, or how to build on existing successes. Perhaps if ministers and senior officials were willing to stand up to the pervasive rubbish journalism, and defend officials for doing their jobs properly, more junior officials would not be inhibited from discussing things, and the quality of advice would improve.
A neutral public service should not be confused with a supine one, and it should be prepared to defend the ethos of its work and its raison d'etre - repeatedly if necessary, until the numbskulls 'get it'.
Put bluntly: grow some backbone and help populist ministers see that pandering to a right-wing idiot media is not a good way to make policy, and nor is punishing officials for doing their job and 'thinking the unthinkable'.
-
Yes - very ouch on the new Mac prices.
Have been waiting for the new model iMacs to replace a 5 year old PowerBook G4, but the price of a 24" iMac just went from approx $2,800 to approx $4,000. And you lose firewire 400 for a gain of a newer video card and larger hard drive. Processor just seems to be a bit speed bumped.
Tempted to leg it down to Magnummac to get one of the 'old' model iMacs before they run out.
-
David, next time you head over to the Lake District, get away from the touristy bit and visit the western Lakes.
Wasdale, Eskdale and Ennerdale are all much further from the madding crowd and much better looking. Also there's a great minature steam train from Ravenglass to Eskdale for Bob (and larger boys and girls) to enjoy. And one of the few places the Americans invaded when at war with the UK - Whitehaven.
-
In terms of all these private sector led panels that are reviewing this that and the other, it'll be important to be clear whether they're inside the scope of the OIA, or if they're going to try for a Cheney-like claim that the review is not part of the work of government.
-
I still can't get my head around the way some people voted like that.
It's easier if you see Labour and National as centrist parties with only minor variation on how they want to run the show.
MMP has enabled those who no longer feel comfortable putting more radical views inside the tent of those two parties to move outside (or be forced out) and present their own offering.
So, if you want some policies based on ideology, vote Green, Progressive or Act. If you slightly varying flavours of 'this is how we're going to manage a capitalist mixed economy', vote Labour or National. Ergo, easy to rationalise splitting your vote between Labour and National. Less easy to rationalise a split between Progressives and National, Green and National, Act and Green etc.
-
Or is that Sue, Grabbit and Runne from Private Eye fame?
-
It says that our main assets are food production, scenery and Kiwi ingenuity.
Anybody noticing the similarity with 'Our main weapons are...'?
Key, Hide and Dunne - nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
-
Have you checked down the back of your couch?
Yes. Sadly, nothing doing there. But since I think tax-cuts are the wrong way to go, and that Labour shouldn't have succumbed to the media hype for them, I'd rather find something down the back of the sofa than getting more money via the route you see as the alternative. I measure wealth in ways other than the size of my pay packet.