Rail union condemns ‘managed decline’ of rail network
The Rail and Maritime Transport Union (RMTU) is concerned that KiwiRail is so strapped for cash that some lines are in a state of ‘managed decline’ at a time when the road transport lobby is demanding more and bigger trucks on our roads.
‘Today we heard that a number of lines like the Stillwater-Ngakawau, the Napier line and the Northland line are only being maintained to a standard that KiwiRail acknowledges will result in deterioration,’ said RMTU General Secretary Wayne Butson.
‘Discussions with KiwiRail and our union on a proposed change in the make-up of maintenance gangs led to management admitting this sorry state of affairs.’
‘Other lines, for example the Wellington to Auckland North Island Main Trunk Line and the Picton to Invercargill South Island Main Trunk Line are only being cared for to a standard that will maintain their current state. We are of the view that this is not good enough and our national railway network should be improved,’ said Butson.
‘It beggars belief that in a modern 21st century developed economy we have a railway system that is funded in a manner that loads cost on the operator whilst the trucking industry does not pay the price for the environmental damage and congestion it causes.’
‘KiwiRail pays for the upkeep of the rail network whilst the trucking companies certainly do not pay their fair share of the cost of maintaining our road network or for the impact of the pollution and traffic congestion they are responsible for.’
‘To add insult to this injury, the National led Government is considering allowing more and bigger trucks on our roads as the recent release of the Ministry of Transport’s discussion document on this very question indicates,’.
‘A forward thinking government would be investing in rail for the 21st century and beyond rather than considering increasing the size and number of diesel belching dinosaurs like trucks,’ Butson said.
Metiria Turei has just finished up the Greens state of the nation address and it was polished and safe.
She has had her hands media trained to death. Tries to establish the playing field by denying it is a playing field. Talks about the values Greens would take into any Government (emphasis on the any) and the big idea is some new wonk unit inside Treasury to get an independent wonk to cost out the wonks every Political Party makes.
Wontastic.
Wonkery like that goes down a treat in blue-green territory.
The only time Met managed to project some genuine insight was when talking about her time out of Parliament and mingling with whanau to gauge their view of her continued presence in Politics. The answer was emphatic that she still has a role to play and she nailed in place her vision to take on 2017.
It will go down a treat with the middle class vote they’re chasing, nothing groundbreaking, nothing rousing, just a few clever professional additions to the upgrade currently on offer from National. It’s app politics for the politically neutral and disinterested.
Here’s the level of passion the Greens should have projected today.
The US political establishment is a little less cocky now that Bernie Sanders is surging in the polls. The latest polls show him ahead in the New Hampshire primary race and the Iowa caucuses.
Previously the commentariat laughed at the prospect of a self-declared “socialist” ending up the Democratic Party candidate, let alone becoming President. Hillary Clinton, the establishment candidate, was pronounced a shoo-in.
What all these “experts” forgot about was the people, and their attraction to progressive policies such as free health and education, paid for with more taxation on the rich. The media pundits didn’t learn anything from the Jeremy Corbyn’s successful campaign for the British Labour leadership, which was based on similar progressive policies. When Corbyn entered the race the pundits gave him no chance.
Stage 1 is polite condescension (“its really wonderful that your views are being aired”).
Stage 2 is light casual mockery (“no dears, a left-wing extremist will not win, but it’s nice to see you excited”).
Stage 3 sees angry etiquette lectures directed at supporters of the left-wing candidate as on-line support for him or her grows.
Stage 4 is the beginning of putdowns trying to marginalise the candidate as old, white, male or too far-left.
Stage 5 is the beginning of a more open right-wing political offensive accusing the candidate as weak on terrorism, associating with bad people, etc.
Stage 6 is grave warnings of the damage it will do to the party, maybe lasting years, if they reject the establishment candidate.
Stage 7, is a full-scale attack, launched when the progressive candidate shows they have a real chance of winning. The candidate’s message is twisted, dirt dug up from their past, supposed links with extremists exposed, and there are threats to withdraw support from the party if the candidate wins.
If Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire Greenwald thinks Stage 7 will begin in earnest. However, with the polls showing Sanders in the lead in those two states, it may be that we are already entering Stage 7. This week Sanders has been the subject of multiple attacks for using the “S” word (“socialism”) which his critics portray as not much different from “communism”.
Maybe these attacks will make it harder for Sanders. But at present their unfairness seems to be increasing his vote.
One thing the right-wing commentariat doesn’t talk about too much is that Sanders has a better chance of beating Donald Trump (and other Republican hopefuls like Ted Cruz) than does Hillary Clinton. Averaging the polls, Bernie Sanders leads Donald Trump by 11%, where Hillary Clinton is only 4% ahead of the Republican front-runner. Sanders also has a bigger lead than Clinton over Ted Cruz.
Auckland Town Hall.Join Jane Kelsey and the brilliant Lori Wallach list every way the TPPA damages us in NZ from 7pm tonight at the Auckland Town Hall. The venue will pack out quickly so be early to ensure a seat. If you can’t get into the venue or you can’t get into Auckland tonight, The Daily Blog will be live streaming the debate tonight here at 7pm.
A political panel will tell us why they oppose the signing of the TPPA: Grant Robertson, Labour; Metiria Turie, Greens; Marama Fox, Maori Party; and Fletcher Tabuteau, NZ First.
“Even that small benefit is a gross exaggeration. The modelling makes unfounded assumptions, and the real benefits will be far smaller. If the full costs were included, it is doubtful that there would be any net economic benefit to the New Zealand economy.”
The main beneficiaries of tariff reductions from TPPA will be agricultural exporters, but modest tariff reductions of 1.3% on average by 2030 will be dwarfed by the ongoing volatility in commodity prices and exchange rates. The TPPA is not a gold standard agreement. “There remain extensive trade barriers to New Zealand agricultural exporters into the Japanese, Canadian and US food markets, and these are now locked in under the TPPA” explains Barry Coates who authored the section on agricultural trade.
Turn up tonight or watch online. If you can – alert all your friends and family.
ONE OF THE MANY INNOVATIONS pioneered by Halt All Racist Tours (HART) in 1981 was the protest “menu”. Not every opponent of Apartheid relished the prospect of going head-to-head with the infamous “Red” and “Blue” riot squads. Nor, following the violence unleashed following the cancelled Hamilton game, were there all that many protesters willing to confront the Springbok Tour’s most rabid supporters. Rather than see a large number of its own supporters stay away from the protests, however, the HART leadership came up with the idea of offering a menu of options.
For the most militant, there were “Special Ops”. Some of these involved small bands of protesters taking out the television signal relay-stations essential to broadcasting the games live. Other groups blocked motorways, ran onto airport runways, and immobilised the public transport services essential for getting Rugby fans to the match venue.
Perhaps the most famous of these “Special Ops” came on the final day of the Tour when a light aircraft made repeated runs over the Third Test, at Eden Park, dropping flour-bombs on Springbok and All Black alike!
Participants in these operations knew and accepted the risk of being arrested, tried and convicted. The flour-bomber of Eden Park, Marx Jones, spent eight months in prison for his spectacular protest. John Minto was sentenced to six months jail for blockading Rotorua Airport. Special Ops were not for the faint-hearted!
The next option on the protest menu involved testing the perimeter of the stadium where the Springboks were playing. This was the option that generated the images of the 1981 Springbok Tour with which New Zealanders are most familiar. The protesters are helmeted and padded-up against the Riot Squads’ infamous PR-24 long batons, and many carry wooden shields designed to prevent the sort of baton attack that injured so many defenceless protesters outside Christchurch’s Lancaster Park during the First Test.
The final option was intended for those who wished to avoid any kind of confrontation with either the Police or the Tour’s supporters. Many of those who availed themselves of this option were members of the mainstream Christian denominations. Others were elderly, or the parents of kids who wanted to participate safely in the anti-Apartheid protests. Such events took a variety of forms. Some groups opted for candlelight vigils and/or prayer meetings in the major centres’ churches and cathedrals. Others preferred to join strictly non-confrontational street marches protected by ordinary (i.e. non-riot-squad) police constables.
By offering its supporters these gradations of protest, HART maximised the full potential of the movement it had so patiently assembled over the entire decade of the 1970s. It was a shrewd tactical solution to the problem of what to do with people who wanted to do more than simply march up and down the street. The most militant opponents of the Tour were able to plan and execute radical protest actions of which HART remained entirely ignorant. Meanwhile, the perimeter-testers and the witness-bearers were able to engage in protests with which they felt morally (and legally) comfortable.
There is probably insufficient time for the anti-TPPA movement to develop a similar menu of protest actions against the signing of the TPPA on 4 February. “It’s Our Future” appears to be a much less structured organisation than HART, which boasted its own National Council for determining the anti-Apartheid movement’s strategic and tactical priorities.
Some consideration should, nevertheless, be given to the problem created by the Police’s announcement that it has been engaged for some time in “Public Order Training” – a.k.a. Riot Control. There will be many “Middle New Zealanders” reconsidering their level of commitment to the anti-TPPA cause in the light of this information. Very few will want to risk either themselves of their families by participating in a demonstration where that sort of heavy-handed policing is in prospect. In the absence of a “safe” alternative, people with jobs to lose and mortgages to pay are most unlikely to venture much further than the Town Hall on 26 January.
If, however, they were invited to turn up to the Auckland War Memorial in the Domain on 4 February, to recall the sacrifice of those who gave their lives for New Zealand’s national sovereignty, and to condemn John Key’s government for signing a document which puts that sovereignty at risk – thereby negating the sacrifice of so many young Kiwis – then it is my belief that many hundreds of Aucklanders who might otherwise have remained at home will seize the opportunity of registering a safe and responsible protest.
Something for Jane Kelsey and her comrades to think about. Because, this time, it’s not the rights and freedoms of Black South Africans that New Zealanders are fighting for – it’s their own.
Despite a clear majority of the New Zealand public being opposed to the TPPA, John Key is set to sign the trade deal in Auckland on the 4th of February at SkyCity casino. This is an outrage, and a challenge. John Key is making it clear that he will side with multinational corporations against the working majority of people in Aotearoa/New Zealand- the question is how will people respond?
Online there has been a flurry of vigorous debate regarding violence. There are both pieces for and against riots at the casino. This focus on the relative merits of “violence” is a distraction for the movement and plays into John Keys hands at this critical time.
For one, the chances of a spontaneous riot on February 4th are very limited. Historically, riots are spontaneous outpouring of public outrage. As a general rule, a riot is not called in advance and openly advertised in advance. John Key and the police know this. The reason the police are organising “public order response” training is not mitigate a real threat of public disorder- it is an attempt to intimidate the majority of New Zealander’s into not attending any further protests against this trade deal.
Debate between activists for or against “violent protests” of the campaign miss the point.
Firstly, to argue against “violent protest” at rallies is at best unnecessary and at worst buys into the narrative the John Key is trying to create. It is a lie that the campaign has been violent to date spread by the government and its allies in the media. Accentuating the “peaceful nature” of the protests actually just validates John Key’s narrative. Buying into this discussion can help to distract from the protests message- that a clear majority oppose this trade deal.
In the second instance, those calling for an “escalation” in protest methods can also be wide of the mark. John Key is realistically not afraid of people dropping cow manure at MP offices, and the chances of the protests storming Sky City to stop the deal are limited to say the least. John Key is afraid of the political consequences or an organised majority holding him and his government to account on this, or other anti-popular policies.
John Key will be mobilising the police and labeling of protesters as violent. Organisers should seek to avoid unnecessary or unhelpful conflict with the police, but this is a decision that is largely outside of the control of activists. If there is a political direction to the police to crackdown on protests, they will do so regardless of the kaupapa or ‘family friendliness’ of an event. These actions from John Key has been designed to divide the movement and intimidate others from being involved. The only effective defense against police violence it large, vibrant movements and popular support.
It is important that we do not turn on other activists- it’s what John Key wants. Instead the movement needs to find ways to move forward democratically, and relentlessly express the powerful truth- a clear majority of working people in New Zealand will not benefit from, have not been consulted in and actively oppose this trade deal.
Let’s channel our energies into four useful directions.
All out for the TPPA at protests on February 4th– lets march on SkyCity and let John Key know what we think- do not be intimidated out of attendance.
Following the call from up north, as many as possible should north to Waitangi to show John Key we won’t be finished easily.
Even if this trade deal passes, it is essential that those who have got active through this campaign stay fighting, because every time a medicine cost goes up or every time a corporation dodges an environmental law- it will be another opportunity for us to fight, and even if we loose at the signing, we can win the battles to come.
Ben’s a long time socialist and a member of the Mana Movement.
It’s deeply disturbing to think that a full five years after the quakes vast swathes of the city centre remain in ruins.
Less than two years after the devastating 1931 Napier earthquake the city held a “New Napier” celebration of their rebuild but it’s impossible to see Christchurch being ready for anything like this for several more years.
Napier was left with just a single city building left unscathed (the Public Trust Office) but the city was rebuilt and most businesses were up and running within two years.
What’s gone wrong here?
I’ve seen some people blame the slow process of democracy as the holdup in Christchurch – if only!
The previous Christchurch City Council came up with a grand masterplan for the city reconstruction in November 2011 through an extraordinary process of democratic consultation (remember Share an Idea? – all traces now erased from the Council website).
The overall framework should have become the blueprint for a “New Christchurch” but it was scuppered by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (Cera) under pressure from the government and corporate business interests.
The government has made it clear it wants a private sector led recovery with government and Council as facilitators. There was to be minimal involvement from what the pedlars of power regard as meddling bureaucrats. We were told that unleashing the much-claimed efficiency of the private sector would see the city transformed more quickly than a central democratic plan could facilitate.
So why is so much of the area within the four avenues still a barren landscape? Why is the city hamstrung by private sector paralysis?
The answer we are now told is a lack of business confidence. We are not talking about small, local businesses here which rolled up their sleeves and got moving with energy and determination as soon as the shocks subsided. With big businesses (often foreign owned) it’s a different story. They and their foreign backers are afraid of the big open spaces and worried that if they start building too soon they won’t make decent returns early enough so each is waiting for the others to act.
Having rejected our democratic plans for the city these nervous nellies are now waiting for us to build their confidence before they will commit to the rebuild.
As a result the government and corporate business interests are putting pressure back on the Council to make decisions to reassure the hand-wringers.
In particular they want the Council and government to commit to building several extravagant anchor projects such as a metro sports facility, convention centre, stadium, cultural centre, performing arts centre etc.
These would be nice to have but they are not priorities for Christchurch citizens. In Napier similar grandiose plans for an entertainment hall, theatres and hotels were abandoned in favour of getting the basics right first.
It’s not surprising the government backs these corporate priorities. They have agreed to “help out” the city by paying for the convention centre but they have backed away from providing as much of the cost of horizontal infrastructure as originally promised. The money the government saves here will likely be transferred to the convention centre while we pick up the hundreds of millions in extra spending needed on sewers and tarseal.
Instead of standing up for Christchurch City priorities and insisting on a people-led recovery our Council simply stumbles on blindly. To pay for the big corporate-comforting projects our elected representatives have approved eye-watering rate increases over the next three years and have begun to sell our assets (euphemistically called “capital-raising” by the mayor) to help pay for them.
The city must also fund the $285 million shortfall from the refusal of private insurers to pay out the insured value of Council properties damaged in the earthquakes.
The corporate sector is taking us for a ride with the not-so-subtle implication that unless the people of Christchurch pay massive rate increases and sell our city assets they will continue to drag their heels on the rebuild.
It’s time for the mayor and Council to stand up for the people of Christchurch and rein in corporate expectations that we citizens will suffer huge financial pain while big businesses avoid the financial risks and get the gains.
Instead of a people-led recovery we are facing a slow, corporate-led stranglehold over the city’s future – bankrolled by the rest of us for many years to come.
Neither the huge rate increases nor the sale of assets are necessary if the Council sticks to working on the priorities for Christchurch citizens. The capital building programme in particular needs to be rescheduled so that rate increases remain at the rate of inflation and we retain our city assets in public hands.
We elected our mayor and Council to stand up for us rather than fall over to a National Party corporate agenda for Christchurch. We deserve much better.
Iraq’s Foreign Ministry has summoned Saudi Arabia’s ambassador in Baghdad over accusations of meddling in Iraq’s domestic affairs, a statement by the ministry said.
The Saudi ambassador, who was recently installed, had said that the presence of Iranian-backed Shia militias in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group was exacerbating sectarian tensions in Iraq.
Enmity between Sunnis and Shias in the Middle East has flared recently as regional conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Yemen deepen long-standing rifts.
Saudi Arabia executed a Shia religious leader this month, infuriating Shias around the region and arch foe Iran.
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has praised China for standing by Tehran while it was under international sanctions, saying the Islamic Republic never trusted the West.
Khamenei’s comments on Saturday came as the two countries agreed to increase bilateral trade to $600bn over the next decade after a visit to Tehran by Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Iran was keen to expand ties with “more independent countries”, Khamenei told Xi, adding the US was “not honest” in the fight against armed groups in the region.
“The Islamic Republic will never forget China’s cooperation during the sanctions era,” he said.
“Westerners have never obtained the trust of the Iranian nation. The government and nation of Iran have always sought expanding relations with independent and trustful countries like China.”
Russian and Iranian intervention has turned the military balance in Syria’s civil war, and rebels fighting Bashar al-Assad’s regime are struggling to cope. Facing an overwhelming Russian assault from the air and an offensive on multiple fronts by the Syrian military and its allied foreign militia, some rebels have decided they urgently need more men — Syrian or not.
As a consequence, the most powerful rebel coalition in northern Syria and an association of mostly jihadist religious scholars have both issued calls to arms not just to able-bodied Syrians, but to the entire Muslim world.
But while Syrians in the opposition agree the military situation is dire, they disagree on whether they want more muhajireen (“migrants,” or foreign fighters) — and whether those fighters are even interested in joining factions other than the Islamic State (IS).
“Ha, as if we need more al Qaeda,” said a Syrian journalist who moves between Aleppo and Turkey, and requested anonymity for his safety.
On December 26, the military council of Jaysh al-Fatah, a rebel coalition whose name translates to “Army of Conquest,” announced on social media a “general call to arms” for Muslims around the world, urging the Islamic nation’s scholars to rally Muslim youth to stand against what it called an Iranian expansionist design.
The scale of state repression in Egypt is greater today than it has been for generations, one of the country’s most prominent journalists and human rights advocates has told the Guardian.
Hossam Bahgat, an investigative reporter who was recently detained by Egypt’s military intelligence agency, spoke out ahead of the fifth anniversary of the start of Egypt’s revolution on Monday – the run-up to which has seen an unprecedented crackdown by security forces against opposition and dissent.
“The level of repression now is significantly higher than it was under the Mubarak regime, and people from older generations say it is worse than even the worst periods of the 1950s and 1960s [under the rule of Gamal Abdel Nasser].”
Officials have decided to drop investigations into almost 60 claims of unlawful killings by soldiers who served in Iraq.
The Iraq historic allegations team (Ihat), set up by the last Labour government in 2010 to examine claims of murder, abuse and torture during the Iraq war, has decided not to proceed in 57 cases, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed. A further case was stopped by the military’s service prosecuting authority.
The national security council was told to draw up options to end “spurious claims”, including measures to curb the use of “no win, no fee” arrangements and the requirement that legal aid claimants must have lived in the UK for 12 months.
The prime minister’s determination comes after the law firm Leigh Day was referred to the solicitors disciplinary tribunal over complaints about its handling of legal claims brought by Iraqi detainees against the MoD.
The claims, which crumbled when it emerged that some of the Iraqis weremembers of the rebel Mahdi army, centred on allegations that detainees had been abused and murdered by British soldiers. The chairman of the Al-Sweady inquiry, which was set up to look into the claims, called the most serious of them “deliberate lies, reckless speculation and ingrained hostility”.
Mercer said the claims were not false and raised issues of “very high importance”, including the abuse of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan and the beating to death by soldiers of the Iraqi hotel worker Baha Mousa.
Mercer pointed out that the government has paid out £20m for 326 cases. “Anyone who has fought the MoD knows they don’t pay out for nothing. So there are 326 substantiated claims at a cost of £20m, and almost no criminal proceedings to accompany it. You have to ask why,” he told the BBC.
As first revealed on 1 December (Hekia Parata breaks law – ignores Official Information Act), Minister Hekia Parata’s office has apparently deliberately broken the law by ignoring requests for information lodged under the Official Information Act.
Intro
The story begins several months ago when this blogger wrote to the Minister’s office on 27 October last year, requesting answers to the following questions regarding National’s Food in Schools programme;
1. How much has been spent on the programme since 28 May 2013?
2. Is the funding still set at $9.5 million, over a 5 year period from 2013 to 2018?
3. How many schools are part of the programme?
4. It was initially available in decile 1 to decile 4 schools. Higher decile schools would be able to opt in from 2014. How many other, higher decile schools have opted into the programme?
5. Are there any figures as to how many children are participating in the programme? If so, what is that data?
6. Is there a time limit as to the length of time a school can participate in the programme?
7. Have any schools been declined participation in the programme? How many? For what reason?
8. Are Sanitarium and dairy cooperative Fonterra still participating in the programme? Have any other companies joined in?
9. Does the KickStart programme in any way affect a schools allocated budget?
10. Have any Charter Schools requested to join the programme? If so, how does this affect their funding?
By 12 November, after no response nor even an acknowledgement, this blogger wrote again to Minister Parata;
On 27 October, I lodged this OIA request with your office. I have recieved no reply or even an acknowledgement.
Please advice whether or not you intend to respond to my OIA request. If not, I will proceed by laying a complaint with the Ombudsman’s Office.
As at 29 November, no response had been forthcoming from the Minister’s office, and a complaint was laid with the Ombudsman’s Office. As this blogger pointer out in the complaint;
I do not believe it is satisfactory that a Minister of the Crown wilfully ignores the law and fails to follow her obligations under the Official Information Act.
Up-date
On 10 December, a response was received from the Ombudsman’s office stating;
“We have made enquiries with the Minister’s Office about this matter and it appears that they did not receive your request. They have conducted an extensive internal search and have been unable to locate your emails of 27 October or 12 November.”
The Ombudsman’s letter went on to that that “the Minister’s Office advised that the information you are seeking is likely to be held by the Minister for Social Development” and suggested that I “may wish to put [my] request to the Minister for Social Development, Hon Anne Tolley, directly by emailing: a.tolley@ministers.govt.nz“.
I wrote back the following day to the Ombudsman, providing specific information of the email addresses used to lodged my OIA request with Parata’s office;
“I am in receipt of your letter dated 10 December where you state that the Education Minister’s office claims “that they did not receive [my] request”. (Emails dated 27 October and 12 November)
I am cutting and pasting the header of both emails into this email;
from:Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com> to:Hekia Parata <hekia.parata@parliament.govt.nz> date:Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:57 AM subject:KickStart breakfast in schools mailed-by:gmail.com
from:Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com> to:Hekia Parata <hekia.parata@parliament.govt.nz> date:Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:45 PM subject:Fwd: KickStart breakfast in schools mailed-by:gmail.com”
I pointed out;
“If the Minister’s email address is incorrect, my emails did not “bounce” back to me.”
I invited the Ombudsman’s office “to test the email address – (hekia.parata@parliament.govt.nz) to ascertain it’s validity”.
The response from the Ombudsman’s Office, on 15 December, was less than inspiring;
“I note you emailed your original request for information to the following address: hekia.parata@parliament.govt.nz. The Minister of Education’s Office has confirmed that this email address is correct. However, as Mr Ilott explained in his letter of 10 December 2015, the Minister’s Office conducted an extensive internal search but was unable to locate your emails.
This Office has no reason to doubt either party’s account of what has happened. In situations like this where a dispute of facts exist, it is generally not the function of an Ombudsman to determine which version of events is the one that should be preferred.”
The Ombudsman’s response does not reassure this blogger that his Office is capable of holding Ministers to account to uphold the letter and spirit of the Official Information Act.
Specifically;
(A) “Losing” one email sent to a legitimate, active, email address is possible. An accidental deletion is not outside the realms of possibility.
But “losing” two emails seems unlikely and does not withstand the credibility “sniff” test.
(B) The Ombudsman stated that Minister Parata’s Office “conducted an extensive internal search and have been unable to locate your emails of 27 October or 12 November“.
How has the Ombudsman arrived at the conclusion that Minister Parata’s Office “conducted an extensive internal search“?
It almost seems as if the Ombudsman has become an (unwitting?) apologist for Parata obvious willful refusal to answer a legitimate OIA request.
(C) Having established Minister Parata “alibi” that they could not “locate” my emails, why was her Office not advised to write to me directly to request copies of my emails?
In what manner is it the responsibility of the Ombudsman to act as a “go between” between a Minister and a Citizen to advise me to write to Minister Tolley’s Office?
Is Minister Parata refusing point-blank to deal with me solely because of past criticisms of her actions? (See ‘Previous related blogposts’ below)
The Ombudsman’s Report bears out this suspicion when she refers to “different and more risk averse treatment of requests by the media and interest groups” (p142).
(D) In stating that “This Office has no reason to doubt either party’s account of what has happened. In situations like this where a dispute of facts exist, it is generally not the function of an Ombudsman to determine which version of events is the one that should be preferred” – it beggars belief that the Ombudman’s Office appears to be abdicating any responsibility to hold a Minister of the Crown to account for what appears to be a breach of the Official Information Act.
If the Ombudsman’s role does not include “the function of an Ombudsman to determine which version of events is the one that should be preferred” – then what is the raison d’être for that Office?
This situation is simply not acceptable. The Minister’s Office has broken the law; offered an implausible excuse; and has drawn the Ombudsman into their sphere of chicanery. The Ombudsman appears to have naively permitted itself to be used as a puppet in this instance.
According to a 2013 dossier compiled by Labour, Parata’s record to responding to OIA requests is poor;
“Along with uncertainty whether the log is 100% accurate, it is also evident that she regularly responds to requests late with only just over half the total number of responses sent within the 20 day statutory period. “
Status of OIA Request
Following on from the suggestion from the Ombudsman’s office (10 December), I duly wrote to Minister Tolley the following day and put the same ten questions to her that I initially sent to Minister Parata.
That letter was acknowledged the same day (11 December) at 9.50AM.
At 11.36AM (11 December) I received a subsequent email from Minister Tolley’s office stating that my OIA “request has been transferred to Brendan Boyle, Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development in line with section 14 (b)(ii) of the Act“.
Since then – nothing.
A month and a half passed. On 21 January I wrote back to Minister Tolley’s office, who subsequently contacted the Ministry of Social Development. The following day, I recieved this unsigned, anonymous response from the Ministry;
With regard to your Official information Act request, it was transferred to the Ministry of Social Development on 11 December 2015. While it has not been our standard practice to acknowledge transferred requests (as the transfer letter is effectively an acknowledgement), we realise it would have been helpful if we had brought to your attention at the time the fact that the days between 24 December 2015 and 15 Janaury 2016 do not count as ‘working days’ as defined in section 2 of the Official Information Act 1982 (http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz). Due to this holiday period, your response is due on 1 February 2016. We apologise for not informing you of this at the time that your request was transferred to us.
Somewhat bizarrely, when the anonymous author from MSD stated that “the days between 24 December 2015 and 15 Janaury [sic] 2016 do not count as ‘working days’ as defined in section 2 of the Official Information Act 1982 “, s/he then posted a link – not to the OIA legislation referred to – but to the Ombudsman’s Office.
When this blogger checked “Section” 2 (actually, Part 2) of the Official Information Act 1982, no reference was found to “the days between 24 December 2015 and 15 Janaury [sic] 2016 do not count as ‘working days’ as defined in section 2 of the Official Information Act 1982 “.
The Act simply refers to twenty working days, which, from December 14 (the next working-day following my OIA lodgement) extends to 13 January.
Accordingly, I wrote back to the Ministry (22 January);
I am in receipt of your email to me, dated 22 January 2016, whereby you claim that “the days between 24 December 2015 and 15 Janaury 2016 do not count as ‘working days’ as defined in section 2 of the Official Information Act 1982”.
I have checked Part 2 of the Act and can find no reference to “the days between 24 December 2015 and 15 Janaury 2016”. Please feel free to enlighten me as to where that proviso exists within the legislation.
By my calculation, twenty working days extends from 14 December to 13 January 2016, inclusive.
If you do not intend to abide by the statute, please advise me and I will lay a complaint with the Ombudsman’s office.
I will keep readers of this blog appraised of this on-going situation.
The shenanigans being played out by Ministers, ministeries, and sundry government departments and other state bodies makes a joke out of the Official Information Act.
National obviously has little regard for the law when it is inconvenienced. Which is ironic, considering right-wing political parties portray themselves as champions of Law and Order.
.
.
John Key admits to his government flouting the law
Whether by an unintended slip, or by some machiavellian plan, on 16 October 2014, our esteemed Dear Leader admitted that his government abused the Official Information Act for purely political self-interest;
.
“Sometimes we wait the 20 days because, in the end, Government might take the view that’s in our best interest to do that.”
.
This disturbingly candid admission of the contempt held by National to the Act provoked condemnation from the Ombudsman, who a day later on TV3’s ‘The Nation‘, called it “cavalier and a disregard for the law“.
Even National’s allies within the right-wing blogosphere at Your NZ, Whaleoil, and Kiwiblog were taken aback by Key’s dismissive hubris toward the Act.
Wakem said she would be ” having words with a few people, I suspect” – including Key.
Previous Criticisms of the Ombudsman
On 8 December 2015, the Ombudsman – Dame Beverley Wakem – released a report “on an investigation into the practices adopted by central government agencies for the purpose of compliance with the Official Information Act 1982“.
.
.
In the Report’s conclusion, the Ombudsman stated;
“I commenced this investigation because of what I perceived to be growing concern and criticism that government agencies were not complying with the requirements of the OIA, nor acting in accordance with its principle and purposes when making decisions about the accessibility of official information they held. Following a comprehensive examination of how agencies have organised and resourced themselves and currently operate in practice, I am satisfied that the OIA itself is fundamentally sound, but it is not always working in practice.
On the positive side of the ledger, agencies are compliant with the OIA most of the time and most government officials working within these agencies have a genuine desire to ensure that they are compliant.” – p140
However, the report’s Conclusions also drew attention to Ministerial interference in responding to OIA requests;
“Where I have found that agencies are vulnerable to non-compliance with the OIA, I have not found evidence of deliberate obstruction but rather the unintended consequences of various attempts to:
[…]
try to meet the expectations of two masters ie, the public under the OIA and the Minister under the ‘no surprises’ principle;
[…]
well-meaning practices that invite opportunities for ministerial/political advisors to influence more than they ought to and sometimes on matters where they have no legitimate place” – p141/142
The Ombudsman’s Conclusions then veered off onto a tanjeant shifting fault to the public, bloggers, and media. A subsequent Dominion Posteditorial was scathing;
What a shame, then, that retiring Chief Ombudsman Beverley Wakem is leaving office amid a cloud of justified controversy. Her recent remarks make her look less like a champion of freedom than a friend of the powerful.
It is truly extraordinary to hear her scolding journalists as “rottweilers on heat” and warning them not to annoy “innately conservative” officials who might then become “gun-shy”. These statements are what you would expect from a bad-tempered bureaucrat, not an ombudsman.
It is not for the Chief Obudsman to tell anyone to be polite and humble when asking for information. It is most certainly not for her to suggest that officials can obstruct information – because that is all that being “gun-shy” can mean here – when they are irritated.
The Official Information Act requires the government to provide information unless there is good reason not to. The reasons for refusal are laid out in statute. The law must determine when the gate is open and when it is shut, not the manners of the applicant or the mood of the gatekeeper.
If Wakem had made these statements when first appointed, they would be good grounds for seeking her resignation. They show a fundamental misunderstanding of her role and an establishment mentality.
The Ombudsman also complained of a lack of public and media submissions to her Inquiry;
“I note that the public were less forthcoming in responding to the surveys, and I was unable to determine precisely why that was. It could be interpreted many ways – from a loss of confidence in the OIA and the work of my Office, to a demonstration that a significant proportion of the public believed with so much official information now being made available on a regular basis, the OIA was working for them…” – p143
Which is an astounding suggestion to make, considering that for the 2013/14 financial year, the number of complaints to the Ombudsman was the third-highest ever. The Ombudsman could easily have based it’s report – even partially – using information gleaned from complaints of non-compliance and tardiness from Ministers and Ministries.
This blogger suggests that the a lack of public submissions could well be attributed to a perception that the Ombudsman’s office is powerless in the face of a government that has been unrelentingly secretive and autocratic.
Indeed, recall that in their 10 December statement to me, the Ombudsman’s office suggested;
“…the Minister’s Office advised that the information you are seeking is likely to be held by the Minister for Social Development. Accordingly you may wish to put your request to the Minister for Social Development, Hon Anne Tolley, directly by emailing: a.tolley@ministers.govt.nz”.
It is simply not the role of the Ombudsman’s Office to be adopting a “helpful” position for a government minister.
Otherwise, the perception – whether rightly or wrongly – is that the Office of the Ombudsman has been captured by ministers and agencies of this government.
As NZ Herald reporter, David Fisher, said on 15 October 2014;
“In the 25 years I have worked as a journalist, there have never been so many questions, or such a loss of faith, all at once.”
Dark Clouds Looming
Up to now, the two weapons-of-choice employed by National Ministers and our Esteemed Dear Leader has been Delay and Defer. For many journalists and bloggers, waiting long periods for a response is not uncommon. By then, news stories have become ‘stale’ and public interest has moved on.
Recently, a new weapon in government and bureaucratic armoury has been unveiled; charging for OIA requests.
On 18 January, the Dominion Post published an editorial describing how the Reserve Bank had begun to demand compensation for information;
.
.
The editorial said, in part;
The Reserve Bank has started a very bad trend by deciding to charge for most Official Information Act responses. The bank says it made this decision last October, but the world only learned of it last week, when the bank invoiced a Fairfax reporter. This is not the right way to make or reveal such a momentous decision.
The bank’s move is in important ways an undemocratic act. The Act makes information available as of right to the country’s citizens; it reverses the previous legal assumption that the government’s information is secret. Information is power, and the act provides power to all.
Charging for researching and providing that information puts a barrier in the way and is an obstacle to the exercise of what is now a vital democratic right. No doubt the bank will point out that the act allows for some charging for costs. But the bank’s policy will institutionalise what has until now been a patchy thing.
This means that ordinary citizens could now face a hefty fee for information. The invoice sent to Fairfax business reporter Richard Meadows was for an estimated $651. A fee of that size would be a serious obstacle for an individual. If OIA requests routinely cost this much it would also be a problem even for large media outlets.
In the Ombudsman’s 2015 report, “Not A Game Of Hide And Seek“, Wakem quoted an earlier Law Commission Report from 2012, which stated;
“…access to official information is an important tool for opposition parties to be able to scrutinise government policy, and that parliamentary research units should not usually be charged for reasonable requests. However, there is no reason why unreasonable political requests should be completely exempt. Voluminous and unrefined requests from parliamentary research units can cause a great deal of expenditure of resources. The charging mechanism should be available to agencies as a defence mechanism in appropriate cases, regardless of the source of the request. The public interest waiver should provide the flexibility for appropriate charging of MPs and incentivise these requesters to ensure that requests have a sufficient public interest basis in order to qualify for a waiver of charges.” – p96
Wakem agreed, saying;
“I agree with this approach and believe it should apply to all types of requesters. The OIA does not provide for an outright exemption based on the identity of a requester or their role in its charging provisions. Nor did I find many members of the media who believed they ought to be exempt from charging, although some worked for organisations that had a policy not to accept any charge for the provision of official information. “
The Law Commission and Ombudsman’s Office ignore the cold hard political reality that politicians and and their bureaucratic minions will not recognise “niceties” of what constitutes “a sufficient public interest basis”.
To be be blunt; if politicians can get away with it – expect them to do it.
The Reserve Bank’s policy of charging for OIA requests is a thin-end of a wedge. It is a test to see if they can get away with it. Other government agencies, Ministries, and Minister’s will follow with predictable succession.
Only expensive legal action could over-turn a charging policy – and few individuals and organisations have pockets deep enough to take on the State.
The Reserve Bank has established a policy on when it will charge for responses to Official Information Act (OIA) requests that has drawn the ire of some critics.
Far from it being an obstacle in the path of freedom that The Dominion Post editorial claimed (January 18), the policy is a common, fair and reasonable response to a marked growth of OIA requests.
I’d like to explain our rationale, and what the policy means for requesters – most of whom will likely not be charged.
Our approach is consistent with the Official Information Act and meets the bank’s commitment to transparency.
Garbage. This is a naked attempt by the RBNZ to stifle transparency, not promote it. Any assertion to the contrary is a ridiculous attempt at ‘spin’ from a not-very-clever spin-doctor working for the Bank.
The irony is that the RBNZ is attempting to charge for information that rightly belongs to us, the tax-payer. That information was gathered using taxpayer-funded resources and by taxpayer-funded public servants.
It is not private information – it belongs to us, the taxpayer.
Politicians, bureaucrats, the Ombudsman’s Office, and Mr Bascand, would do well to reflect on this salient fact.
Conclusion
This blogger will vigorously pursue the OIA lodgedment with Minister Parata; who passed it on to Minister Tolley; who passed it on to the Ministry for Social Development, requesting answers to the following questions regarding National’s Food in Schools programme;
1. How much has been spent on the programme since 28 May 2013?
2. Is the funding still set at $9.5 million, over a 5 year period from 2013 to 2018?
3. How many schools are part of the programme?
4. It was initially available in decile 1 to decile 4 schools. Higher decile schools would be able to opt in from 2014. How many other, higher decile schools have opted into the programme?
5. Are there any figures as to how many children are participating in the programme? If so, what is that data?
6. Is there a time limit as to the length of time a school can participate in the programme?
7. Have any schools been declined participation in the programme? How many? For what reason?
8. Are Sanitarium and dairy cooperative Fonterra still participating in the programme? Have any other companies joined in?
9. Does the KickStart programme in any way affect a schools allocated budget?
10. Have any Charter Schools requested to join the programme? If so, how does this affect their funding?
More than ever, I am curious what the answer(s) will be.
PM John Key and his National government say most Kiwis support the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and those who don’t are ignorant or manipulated.
Show him he’s wrong.
Hear dynamic, funny, and scary US former trade attorney and TPPA expert Lori Wallach, Director of Public Citizen Global Trade Watch, on how the US politics may sink the TPPA.
Jane Kelsey will explain the highlights of the expert papers saying what the TPPA would really mean for Kiwis.
A political panel will tell us why they oppose the signing of the TPPA:
Grant Robertson, Labour; Metiria Turie, Greens; Marama Fox, Maori Party; and Fletcher Tabuteau, NZ First.
The event is live streamed on The Daily Blog from 7pm
For details of Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin meetings see here.
The speaking tour is being sponsored by Its Our Future, Action Station, NZ Council of Trade Unions and First Union but donations are needed to cover costs.
You can contribute to these events and the ongoing campaign here.
The Herald has marked the 20th anniversary of SkyCity with an editorial so gasping with its praise it comes across as a tad aroused.
I’m not a gambler. I don’t bet on horses or dogs or sport. I’ve played the odd pokie machine less than half a dozen times in my life and I buy the odd Lotto ticket here and there (as a Gen Xer, Lotto is your investment portfolio.), so gambling’s never been a thing that’s ever interested me, but I know people close to me for whom gambling is an addiction. For them, they will always need to find a place where they can scratch that itch.
The only reason we allow regulated gambling is because if we banned it, people would go underground to gamble and we would feed unlimited profits to organised crime.
As far as I am concerned, regulating gambling is something we as a society agree to with the reluctance of taking back criminals into our communities.
It’s only because the other option is worse.
You can’t ban gambling, but by God you should put a stranglehold around their expansion and limit their social damage. 20 years of SkyCity has seen nothing but weak legislation watered down further by crony relationships with the current Government.
Beyond the restaurants and hotel and ‘entertainment hub’ is the grim reality that empire has been built upon misery.
SkyCity should be forced to pay their workers better.
SkyCity should be banned from advertising.
SkyCity should be forced to be far more transparent about their problem gambling programs.
SkyCity should be forced to pay a 20% vice tax on their profits. The money for which goes directly to problem gambling.
The problem gambling contract be moved back to the previous organisation running them who in turn have to prepare a critical report of SkyCity annually.
20 years of getting away with promoting a social curse as an exciting entertainment option is enough. Let’s crack down on the gambling industry and get them to pay more for the social damage they create.
I suspect David Farrar, the cloven hoofed handmaiden from the Ministry of Dark Arts, has whispered his polling into Key’s ear and while informing Key that middle NZ are skeptical of activists they have fallen out of love with the TPPA.
This is a problem for National.
Why?
Because while the politically engaged understand the difference between ratifying the TPPA and signing the Treaty, everyone else believed Key when he told them that he would debate the issue in Parliament…
…there’s no point debating a deal Key has already signed in Parliament is there? National middle voters who took him at his word feel cheated.
Key’s response? To denounce Kelsey and protestors and green light Police riot training.
Announcing riot training to an event they are holding in the middle of the city meters away from where a mass protest will be held days before Waitangi Day has all the ingredients of a situation manufactured to cause violence, not prevent it.
