Taking the piss again

Remember Casey Costello? The government's most ignorant Minister? First she was referred to the Chief Archivist after claiming that key advice on her cancer promotion policy had simply magically appeared on her desk one day, and that she had no idea where it came from. Then, when the Ministry of Health said her plan to give Philip Morris a $216 million tax cut for its heated cancer products was a bad idea, she told Cabinet she had received "independent advice" to the contrary; when the media quite rightly asked to see that advice, she released a collection of random papers which did not support the case, and appeared to have been googled up at three a.m. by an emotional junior staffer in response to media queries. And now, she's claiming to have no idea where they came from either. In response to an OIA request for the origins of the material, she claimed:

I note that the advice consists of academic articles and health research that forms part of a wider body of scientific literature that focuses on harm reduction, rather than a moralistic, abstinence-only perspective on tobacco and nicotine products. This research is available online and my office has spent a considerable amount of time reviewing a wide range of evidence and information. As such, it is not possible to provide a definitive response to the date and time the articles and health research were first accessed by my office. Therefore, this part of your request is refused under section 18(g) of the Act, as the information is not held.

Yeah right. And if you believe that, I have a Minister to sell you.

Obviously, this is going to the Ombudsman. They have already made clear in their previous ruling that Ministers are required to take reasonable steps to find if information is held. Obvious steps in this case could include searching emails, checking document management systems, examining file metadata, or just asking staff. Its not clear whether the Minister did any of those things - but in the wake of the previous ruling and referral to the Chief Archivist, it smacks of a further attempt to mislead the public and cover up the truth. Hopefully the Ombudsman will get to the bottom of it.