NZ Election 2020

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › NZ Election 2020

1 | ... | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | ... | 76

11930 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9689

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2547804 22-Aug-2020 19:45

Fred99:
Today I learned that some people who post in political forums don't know the difference between "communism" and "socialism".

(actually I did know it - happens every 4 years around election time).

It's fairly constant. It's usually accompanied by extreme left wing and dangerous. The last NZ government that could really be described as socialist was Muldoons.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2547805 22-Aug-2020 19:50

DS9:

That's 1 second more than any public servant should be in party political ads, he would have had the right to refuse, as would his boss, but there he is...

You've created an opportunity to say something that in general I don't like using:

Womp womp

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2547807 22-Aug-2020 19:57

Handle9:
Fred99:

Today I learned that some people who post in political forums don't know the difference between "communism" and "socialism".

(actually I did know it - happens every 4 years around election time).

It's fairly constant. It's usually accompanied by extreme left wing and dangerous. The last NZ government that could really be described as socialist was Muldoons.

Ahh - the government who used "dancing Cossacks" in a very effective TV ad - apparently unaware that Cossacks weren't "communists" either. Or maybe they were aware but didn't care - dancing Cossacks look like commies to some folks. Meanwhile we're trading milk for Ladas.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19075 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16325

Lifetime subscriber

#2547811 22-Aug-2020 20:19

More than that, being president of the International Union of Socialist Youth when you are a young socialist is hardly a problem, more a sign of ambition and ability. Someone is really looking for reds under the bed here.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19075 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16325

Lifetime subscriber

#2547812 22-Aug-2020 20:27

Handle9:

Do you seriously believe that the government refused as he doesn't have time? They refused as it is politically expedient for them not to have him appear.

Didn't Jacinda Ardern set up the committee in the first place to give the opposition a voice? If so, she can hardly be accused of denying them one.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Handle9

11930 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9689

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2547889 22-Aug-2020 22:23

Rikkitic:

Handle9:

Do you seriously believe that the government refused as he doesn't have time? They refused as it is politically expedient for them not to have him appear.

Didn't Jacinda Ardern set up the committee in the first place to give the opposition a voice? If so, she can hardly be accused of denying them one.

The Health Select Committee? Oh dear.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19075 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16325

Lifetime subscriber

#2547897 22-Aug-2020 22:36

Right. The Epidemic Response Committee. I confused the two. Thanks for being so helpful.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80665 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41106

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2547910 22-Aug-2020 23:52

Handle9:

BarTender:

I’m not surprised. The epidemic response committee was a complete s..hshow where the opposition parties made a mockery of the whole process. If they hadn’t and continue to take the mickey like Gerry recently I would feel differently but the adults are working and there is no reason to waste his time with children.

Lol. We have an adversarial parliamentary system. It's the oppositions job to challenge the government, they do not exist to be cheerleaders.

The "most open and transparent government ever" has been even worse than the Key government in their abuse of the OIA. That's ok though as you said so.

Is it their jobs to challenge the sitting government even when it's doing a good job?

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

DS9

325 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 20

Lifetime subscriber

#2547912 23-Aug-2020 00:18

Is it their jobs to challenge the sitting government even when it's doing a good job?

Yes, otherwise we might as well become a single party state like China.

I aim to misbehave.

Handle9

11930 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9689

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2547913 23-Aug-2020 00:24

freitasm:
Handle9:

Lol. We have an adversarial parliamentary system. It's the oppositions job to challenge the government, they do not exist to be cheerleaders.

The "most open and transparent government ever" has been even worse than the Key government in their abuse of the OIA. That's ok though as you said so.

Is it their jobs to challenge the sitting government even when it's doing a good job?

Of course it is. They are her majesties loyal opposition. It is their responsibility to hold the government to account. They can only do this by challenging those in power.

Does anyone in their right minds think the government are doing the best job they can in all areas? Do you think if they weren't they would own up? Hipkins is a case in point. He's a competent minister, although with far too much responsibility at the moment. Education and Health are not part time jobs and it's mad to expect him to do both jobs at the same time. It's likely Ayesha Verall is made health minister in the next parliament.

His story around testing numbers has changed this week. His answer during press conferences and his answers during question time were quite different. Question time, the media and select committees are what we as citizens rely on to ensure those in power don't just do whatever they want and lie about it.

The press ask the same questions multiple different ways to look for inconsistencies and avoid accusations of misquoting, lies or accusations of fake news. Politicians of all stripes will try and avoid answering the question and obfuscate. These are large organisations and the public servants will tell stories they think their leaders (elected or otherwise) want to hear. It's the same in large private sector organisations.

This is, was and always will be the case, no matter who is in power. Given that the director general of health has had responsibilities removed due to "dissonance" and poor performance of his ministry he should be challenged and his ministry held to account.

The opposition will of course make a show, twist ministers words and try and find inconsistencies, just as the government will obfuscate, overstate their achievements and manipulate statistics to show what they want. This is the way the Westminster system works, if it is functioning correctly. It's certainly not perfect but the alternative isn't pretty.

Handle9

11930 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9689

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2547917 23-Aug-2020 01:26

The open and transparent government topic is really important and quite boring for most people. There was almost no comment on here when Andrew Little said that it was Labour policy that they would rewrite it.

Stuff rang a really good series last year on the OIA and how it is dysfunctional. If you care about open and transparent democracy you should read it. It's very much equally obfuscated by the politicians (of both groups) and the public servants so it is worth understanding the issues at play.

Labour promised to be the most open and transparent government ever but the numbers don't bear that out. Thankfully they didn't suspend the OIA like the bureaucracy wanted them to during the first lockdown.

The other game that politicians play is to make the bueracracy responsible for failings. Saying that problems are the responsibility of the chief executive rather than the politicians. I first started noticing this during the Key government, when problems were always operational, not policy.

The Ardern government have continued on with the same excuses as they are quite effective. This was exactly what David Clark did when he blamed Ashley Bloomfield and took no responsibility for one if the ministry of health's failings. If the chief executive (or director general) is then not made available to parliament then there is a massive hole in responsibility and accountability.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/save-the-oia

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/122114366/an-updated-official-information-act-must-strengthen-our-right-to-know

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/the-perverse-outcomes-of-the-oia

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2548056 23-Aug-2020 11:54

I agree that the OIA is borked. I've seen it from both sides too - being stonewalled by a government agency not wanting to give me information that they knew would help me nail them, but on the other hand seeing a few seemingly vexacious people send almost countless OIA requests that still had to be responded to - then each reply did need to be picked over carefully to redact anything that would have breached privacy etc, and you'd need full time qualified staff to deal with it reasonably and fairly.
Maybe "unintended consequences" when set up, the flood of requests by "concerned individuals" as soon as the media create doubt, then the agency gets flooded and appears to be even less transparent than imagined.
They probably do use that as an excuse - was certainly what Brownlee's EQC appeared to be doing systematically.

quickymart

14945 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 13966

ID Verified

#2548065 23-Aug-2020 11:57

Fred99: a few seemingly vexacious people send almost countless OIA requests that still had to be responded to - then each reply did need to be picked over carefully to redact anything that would have breached privacy etc, and you'd need full time qualified staff to deal with it reasonably and fairly.

Oh you mean that Taxpayers Union crowd?

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2548169 23-Aug-2020 13:19

quickymart:

Fred99: a few seemingly vexacious people send almost countless OIA requests that still had to be responded to - then each reply did need to be picked over carefully to redact anything that would have breached privacy etc, and you'd need full time qualified staff to deal with it reasonably and fairly.

Oh you mean that Taxpayers Union crowd?

Nope. They probably do, but even journalists when they thought they got a whiff of something via their usual sources, anonymous posts of Reddit, Twitter etc. (My SO had to deal with endless fishing from a reporter wanting countless documents about "everything" when there was truly nothing at all to see - a close friend of the reporter had been fired because they couldn't do their job, was miffed, and created some myths - you can't refuse the OIA requests because you smell a rat). OTOH what if the reporter had been right?

Then again there are obviously many legitimate situations where public do need to be excluded or information does need to be redacted. So who gets to decide? And how can you know if you're being stonewalled when you can't see what you'd need to see to know? Well - you go to the Ombudsman. Good luck with that. Best I managed was responses acknowledging my complaint and a reference/case number. In subsequent communication with the organisation I was clearly CCing the ombudsman's office and requesting that communication gets added to the existing file. That seemed to stir some action, but I don't even know if that was the real reason things started moving - and anyway I've only needed to do this once.

TLDR - I'f you're making a request you can't "know" that something you haven't seen is real or not because you haven't seen it, and if you're on the receiving end you can't conclude that repeated requests are "vexacious" just because you're getting repeated requests - so there's no easy answer to fix the problem with the OIA.

BarTender

3629 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2572

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2548267 23-Aug-2020 17:04

Fred99:

quickymart:

Oh you mean that Taxpayers Union crowd?

Nope. They probably do, but even journalists when they thought they got a whiff of something via their usual sources, anonymous posts of Reddit, Twitter etc. (My SO had to deal with endless fishing from a reporter wanting countless documents about "everything" when there was truly nothing at all to see - a close friend of the reporter had been fired because they couldn't do their job, was miffed, and created some myths - you can't refuse the OIA requests because you smell a rat). OTOH what if the reporter had been right?

Then again there are obviously many legitimate situations where public do need to be excluded or information does need to be redacted. So who gets to decide? And how can you know if you're being stonewalled when you can't see what you'd need to see to know? Well - you go to the Ombudsman. Good luck with that. Best I managed was responses acknowledging my complaint and a reference/case number. In subsequent communication with the organisation I was clearly CCing the ombudsman's office and requesting that communication gets added to the existing file. That seemed to stir some action, but I don't even know if that was the real reason things started moving - and anyway I've only needed to do this once.

TLDR - I'f you're making a request you can't "know" that something you haven't seen is real or not because you haven't seen it, and if you're on the receiving end you can't conclude that repeated requests are "vexacious" just because you're getting repeated requests - so there's no easy answer to fix the problem with the OIA.

I can only agree with you @Fred99, I have written a few OIAs and worked with staff responding to them.

Personally I think the only way to fix it would be to allow agencies to go to the ombudsman and look to charge the folks who send repeated and utterly vexatious requests. I think the Taxpayer Union is one such group as they are clearly hyper partisan, refuse to provide transparency on who funds them. I also think sites like https://fyi.org.nz/ do a great job to improve the transparency of government since you the requester makes the request public to their site so it is clear when you are taking the p.ss.

1 | ... | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | ... | 76