The "most open and transparent government ever" again

According to the Prime Minister and other Ministers, the decision to open up Auckland and allow Covid to spread was made on the basis of "eroding social licence". The phrase repeatedly appears in Cabinet Papers on the subject, particularly in the 4 October review of alert level settings which caused the whole shitshow. But while this phrase is apparently crucial to government decision-making, the Prime Minister and a bunch of other senior Ministers claim not to know what it means.

If taken seriously, this should cast serious doubt on their decision-making on such matters. But its clearly not meant to be taken seriously. Instead, it's a casual "fuck you" response from the self-proclaimed "most open and transparent government ever", and an example of their obsession with secrecy and reluctance to release anything if they can possibly contrive an excuse not to.

I mean really, would it have killed them to just point at a dictionary? And would it really have taken them 16 working days to do so?

"The most transparent government ever" - still bullshit

Shortly after being elected, Labour promised to be "the most open, most transparent Government that New Zealand has ever had". I've commented repeatedly on how Labour is failing to meet that promise in its behaviour over parliamentary written questions. And sadly, despite the Speaker repeatedly calling them out on it, their bullshit continues:

I have received a letter from the Hon Michael Woodhouse raising with me the responses to written questions he has received from the Minister of Health. I note the Minister and his office have been under considerable pressure as a result of having up to 1,500 questions lodged on a single day... However, Dr Clark's response to some of the questions is not acceptable.

The replies refer the member to another reply, and that reply refers him on to another reply. In one instance, the member would have had to make his way through 22 separate replies which do not answer the question before finally reaching the answer. That approach falls far short of the standard of accountability required to the House of Ministers.

The matter was compounded by the answer that was ultimately provided, which stated that the matter was an operational one and that the member could use the Official Information Act 1982 to request the information sought. There is no convention that Ministers are not answerable for operational matters in the agencies falling within their portfolio areas...

So why did the Minister get 1,500 questions in a single day? From the look of it, because he made work for himself. Ministers have sought to avoid accountability by demanding increasing specificity in questions, meaning that a request for operation numbers over a specific period by type and DHB - basic accountability information - had to be chopped up by each of those categories. Meaning dozens of questions per DHB, for each of the 20 DHBs (I haven't dug further to see if it had to be chopped up by time as well). And from the Speaker's ruling, in the end the Minister provided bulk information anyway. Which invites the question of why they didn't do it in the first place, and the conclusion that he has no-one to blame but himself.

The Speaker has been good about calling Ministers out over their bullshit games, but it clearly isn't working. Its time that Ministers who undermine our democracy by refusing accountability to parliament are dragged before the Privileges Committee and punished for their contempt. The Committee can impose fines of up to $1,000. Applying that per question they fail to answer properly ought to provide an incentive for better Ministerial behaviour.

Happy Mondays

David Clark's Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill has just passed its third reading, 61 - 60. Good. Now people can get their full holiday entitlement every year, rather than being robbed of two of them two years out of seven.

Getting a member's bill through without government support is a rare achievement, and David Clark deserves our congratulations for it. As for those who voted against it, Jan Logie is right: it was just curmudgeonly. We deserve better from our MPs.

Member's day

Today is a member's day, the first one of the year. And while the Herald is suggesting David Clark's Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill will pass its second reading today, I'm not so sure. Not because the votes aren't there, but because there is just too much stuff ahead of it on the Order Paper.

First up, there are three local bills to get through, including a committee stage. While I doubt there's anything really interesting to discuss in the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill, its a third reading debate, scheduled for up to two hours - giving the government a perfect opportunity for a filibuster. Likewise with the other two local bills. Similarly with Chris Auchinvole's Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill - again, utterly uncontroversial (it implements a Law Commission report - something which should really be a government bill), but that's potentially another two hours. on an ordinary day, I'd say the chances of at least getting to the holidays bill weren't bad - but then this is a bill that looks certain to be passed against the government's wishes. They will be eager to avoid that humiliation (and maybe buy some more time in which to strongarm the Maori Party or Peter Dunne), giving a strong incentive for obstruction.

I'd be glad to be wrong, but I expect the next few member's days will be drawn-out affairs, as the government tries to delay its defeat until the last possible moment.