"Small?" The Official Information Act urgently needs a systematic and thorough overall review, in order to protect democratic accountability and transparency, and preserve the principles of open and accessible government on which it was originally based.
Absolutely. But that's a huge, multi-year policy project (which also might never happen). In the meantime, there are a pile of little things we can do quite easily (and one at a time) to improve things. This doesn't mean we stop advocating for the big changes; instead it means grabbing as much as we can and then demanding more.
But seeing as this seems like information that should be available, and we don't actually have a valid reason to hide it... here it is anyway...
That would be reasonable, wouldn't it? But reasonableness is only easily enforceable on entities subject to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, who are therefore already (with a couple of exclusions) subject to the OIA.
It would be nice if there was a process under which details like this could be tidied up, rather than having to depend on the whims of our Parliamentary Representatives.
Organisations which are not government departments can be added to the Ombudsman's Act (and hence the OIA) by Order in Council. But full Ombudsman's jurisdiction isn't always appropriate, and there's no ability to add entities to the OIA alone in the same way.
We should probably take it up with whoever it was who made the legal challenge that led to this change.
Actually, we should take it up with the National-dominated select committee who in 2014 sprang it on us as a measure to counter their fantasy election fraud (i.e. make it more difficult for people to vote). See "confirmation of identity" in the report here.
To address the policy issue: it wouldn't be a problem if the countries we imported from also put a price on carbon. Then the cost would be built right in.
For imports from countries without such pricing, a border carbon tax is justified.
And so, a new series of questions arise. Who, in this so-called open and transparent system, entered the RFP process? Why was Trident Systems preferred over the other applicants? Which individuals made the decision to award the tender to Trident, and on what criteria? And how did MPI and industry manage the inherent conflict of the industry consenting to and supporting itself, relative to external applicants?
These are all good questions. You should submit an OIA on them.
This process includes a Police vetting check on individuals involved in a research application.
Presumably because of all that "NZ Police Privileged Information" they'll be accessing. Like localised crime statistics, or interviews with police officers. You know, sensitive stuff.
Alternatively, the police could be taking about themselves. I imagine they misunderstand and misrepresent police data all the time.
They may not be an "elite military unit", but they are uniformed officers of the Crown, sworn and empowered to enforce the law, including using deadly force if necessary. They are not Joe or Josephine Public, and pretending that they are just like you is supremely naive. For better or worse, they are a power apart from all the rest of the citizens of this country.
Which is a problem, because one of the core Peelian Principles is that "the police are the public and that the public are the police". And this is vital for maintaining public cooperation and policing by consent - vital to maintaining their ability to do their job.
Is this police "contract" a new thing?
Ask them and find out.