Posts by nzlemming
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: Properly Public: It's our information, in reply to John Holley,
This is no pipe dream as systems in use in NZ e.g. HP Trim or Objective, have these capabilities now. It just requires an actual commitment to open government rather than the lip service we tend to see.
In my view, that's the ultimate aim of the OIA. If it's not required to be secret/confidential, don't treat it as if it is. Publish everything and let the inquirer do the work.
There's not much I like about the USG way of doing things, but the automatic declaration of public domain over non-classified information is one of them.
-
Speaker: Properly Public: It's our information, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Obeying the law is the “actual job” of public servants and if they don’t grasp that then they should find a more congenial line of work.
The Act specifically precludes fishing expeditions. For one who complains about others playing the man, not the ball, you surely indulge in a fair amount yourself, Craig. Please keep your contributions civil.
PS In NZ we don't have a civil service, so you might want to check some UK-based prejudices at the door.
-
Up Front: A Real Character, in reply to Bart Janssen,
That’s why slamming Padme for being a terrible female character is so pointless, none of Lucas’ characters have any depth so what make Padma any shallower.
So much This!
-
Up Front: A Real Character, in reply to Emma Hart,
Yes. I'd also like it if a poly/kinky character got more than the odd episode in a US crime drama. We're so bloody demanding.
Pauley Perrette playing Abby Sciuto in NCIS?
-
Speaker: Properly Public: It's our information, in reply to Ross Mason,
Even better was getting .doc files with track changes still in the document. Hours of fun for the whole family ;-)
-
Speaker: Properly Public: It's our information, in reply to linger,
I am impressed that it's taken 45 comments to reach the gutter. Is this a PAS record? ;-)
-
Speaker: Properly Public: It's our information, in reply to slarty,
I witnessed this with a local agency – I saw the document, handed it back, made the request then was told it didn’t exist…
Quite believe it. I worked in one agency where my manager said "right, we read the question carefully and only answer exactly what we have to and no more" which, to my mind, is not in accordance with the spirit of the act. Mind you, the whole Public Service was getting regular fishing trips from Rodney Hide at the time (late 90's) so some people may have been getting a bit jaundiced about the OIA thing.
-
Speaker: Properly Public: It's our information, in reply to Sacha,
I don't remember that they did. I think I was told not to be so silly and they were guidelines, not standards, so SSC weren't prepared to alter the contracts with CE's. It certainly was not included in the paper that went to Cabinet.
We were in the mode of "persuading" rather than "enforcing" which rather made much of e-government a disappointing experience.
-
Speaker: Properly Public: It's our information, in reply to Sacha,
That's what I asked for when we put the Guidelines to Cabinet, but SSC weren't prepared to go that far.
-
Speaker: Properly Public: It's our information, in reply to izogi,
I think the lack of interest at the top in a few departments is what hinders some of this.
Yup, yup, yup. Totally agree. Back in the E-government days, we had notional agreement at the CE level that these things were important, but it never seemed to filter down. I also suspect that much of the "consensus" in the CE's Forum was about not putting your head above the parapet, and was immediately forgotten when the meeting was over.