A parliamentary purpose?

Rimmer's Regulatory Standards Bill is unpopular, and like his unconstitutional Treaty Principles Bill, has seen a massive outpouring of public opposition. So for the past week, he has been using his platform as deputy prime minister to publicly attack high-profile submitters, with a series of ads calling them "victim of the day". It is effectively a hate-campaign against submitters, attempting to incite harassment and violence against them, in an effort to deter submissions in future. It has already resulted in thousands of hate-filled online messages directed at Rimmer's targets, including misogyny, racism, and threats of gender-based violence.

That's bad enough. But to add insult to injury, at least one of those ads bears a Parliamentary logo. It's being done with out money!

Parliamentary communications "must only be used for parliamentary purposes". Readers might want to consider whether organising harassment campaigns against members of the public who submit on legislation is a "parliamentary purpose". And if it turns out that it is "within the rules" - as MP's love to say when caught doing something immoral - whether those rules, or indeed the entire institution, is fit for purpose.

Secondly, among the examples of contempt of parliament are these:

intimidating, preventing, or hindering a witness from giving evidence, or giving evidence in full, to the House or a committee...

assaulting, threatening, or disadvantaging a person on account of evidence given by that person to the House or a committee.

Rimmer is not (to my knowledge) sending hate-filled messages himself to intimidate, threaten, and disadvantage committee witnesses in retaliation for their evidence - he has an online mob to do that for him. Which he is inciting. And on that front, anything which "has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such a result" qualifies as contempt.

Some MP should lodge a complaint. And if the Privileges Committee finds him guilty, then he should be hoist by his own petard, and suspended for a month.

Retreating into his far-right bubble

When Rimmer proposed his weirdo libertarian Regulatory Standards Bill, the public reaction was clear and unequivocal. 88% of the 23,000 submissions on the initial consultation rejected it completely. Only 0.3% thought it was a good idea. Faced with this level of public opposition, a sensible, reality-based politician - or at least one who could count - would have realised they were on dangerous ground and dumped the bill, or at least paused to reconsider. But not Rimmer. Instead, he's decided that everyone who did not completely support the bill was a "bot":

ACT leader David Seymour has claimed 99.5 percent of the submissions received on the Regulatory Standards Bill were created using "bots".

[...]

"You're smart enough to know that those 23,000 submissions, 99.5 percent of them, were because somebody figured out how to make a bot make fake submissions that inflated the numbers," Seymour said.

The figures quoted were "meaningless" and represented nothing more than somebody "running a smart campaign with a bot".

When asked what evidence Seymour had that the submissions were fake, he said it's because "we've looked at them. Because we know what the contents of them is".

...except they didn't. Because the Ministry for Regulation got an AI - a "bot", if you will - to "read" and categorise the submissions. And it didn't make any such finding. Neither did they find a huge number of duplicate or form submissions (as used by far-right groups in support of Rimmer's racist Treaty Principles Bill). Those 20,000 submissions clearly opposed to the bill? They're from actual people, iwi, and organisations. They're not "bots"; they're simply people saying things Rimmer doesn't like.

(I should note that normally submissions on this sort of consultation are released, so normally you'd be able to check all this yourself. But Rimmer's quack ministry has refused to follow the normal democratic process, and refused to release them under the OIA. Which conveniently allows him to lie about them with impunity. Which is another example of how this government weaponises secrecy to undermine democracy).

Someone on kikorangi observed that "Bot submitters are just the digital version of the paid protesters trope." That seems accurate. And like claims about paid protestors or "crisis actors", claims of "bot submitters" (or his new one about "online campaigns") are an attempt to delegitimise clear and public signs of opposition. Its a sign that Rimmer is retreating into his far-right bubble - a bubble in which people organising to oppose the government is somehow suspicious and undemocratic - rather than admit the reality that his agenda is deeply unpopular. But while he can spout these absurdities, there's something he's not going to be deny: when we vote him and the rest of his dogshit regime out at the next election.

ACT's problem is Luxon's problem

Back in 2023, a "prominent political figure" went on trial for historic sex offences. But we weren't allowed to know who they were or what political party they were "prominent" in, because it might affect the way we voted. At the time, I said that this was untenable; it was unfair to voters, it was unfair to the party (which I assumed would want to dispel the inevitable suspicion that they knew or were careless about this historical offending), and it was unfair to all its candidates (some of whom may have wished to avoid the taint of representing a party which hosted a sex offender). And it was terrible for our democracy:

Because if the party ends up in government and helping to make justice policy after the election, and then suppression is lifted, voters will rightly feel that they have been defrauded at the ballot box and that the government gained power by covering up child abuse. Which is obviously horrific for its legitimacy, and for public confidence in our democratic institutions.

Now that his name suppression has formally lapsed, we are allowed to formally know that the man was Tim Jago, and the party which benefitted from this suppression is ACT. Who are indeed helping to make justice policy, and are currently trying to rewrite te Tiriti o Waitangi and core elements of our constitution. ACT is able to do this because a judge covered up these allegations, preventing reporting of the party's institutional cover-up (not to mention connecting the dots with sexual harrassment and sexual assault within the party, not to mention the dodgy attitudes of its previous leader), and thereby preventing voters judging them accordingly. So, we have an illegitimate rewrite of our constitution by a government whose support is based, in part, on a colossal act of electoral fraud. Yeah, that's totally legitimate, and I'm sure people will have huge confidence in the political system which enables it.

People need to be asking Christopher Luxon how he feels about depending on the support of a party which covered up for a child abuser, and what he's going to do about it. Because he chose his friends. He chose to lie down with that dog. If he doesn't want the fleas, he knows what he can do about it.

End the government, not te Tiriti

For the last few months the Waitangi Tribunal has been holding an urgent inquiry into National's "Treaty Principles Bill". They've already issued one interim report, declaring it to be a steaming pile of racist horseshit, but the inquiry is still going on to determine just how big and how steaming and how shitty that pile is. This is obviously embarrassing for the government, so they decided to put a stop to it, with a plan to rob the Tribunal of jurisdiction by introducing the bill to the House early.

Obviously, it didn't work. The government's lawyers immediately told the Tribunal (as they were obliged to do under their duty of candour to the court); the Tribunal immediately passed this on to claimant's lawyers (ditto); and then it produced an interim report (it being their job to do so), declaring the bill to be "worst, most comprehensive breach of the Treaty/te Tiriti in modern times" which, if passed and not immediately repealed, "could mean the end of the Treaty/te Tiriti" (which is, sadly, the point; this white supremacist government wants to end te Tiriti, and that needs to be said loud and clear so we all know what is at stake).

And now Rimmer has the gall to be upset at the Tribunal for doing its job when he tried to stop it. Because apparently he thought he could rob it of jurisdiction and so prevent criticism of his white supremacist, anti-constitutional policy in secret, without anyone noticing or being allowed to do anything. Which just shows how utterly contemptuous of democratic norms this racist fuckweasel is.

Democratic governments don't try and undermine the foundations of their constitution. And they especially don't try and do it in secret, with a blitzkreig to prevent and limit opposition. That's Trumpist shit, and stuff we should not tolerate in Aotearoa.

Neither should we tolerate Rimmer's bill. Te Tiriti is the foundation of our constitution. While it is not the source of the government's sovereignty (because sovereignty was never ceded), it is one of the key sources of its legitimacy. It meddles with it at its peril. If the government wants to end te Tiriti and the crown-Māori relationship, then I think that many kiwis would rather end them and their illegitimate regime instead.

Not getting the message

Yesterday almost all political parties attended the Koroneihana at Tūrangawaewae, and Chris Luxon and Shane Jones took the opportunity to make it crystal clear that the government's racist, divisive, Tiriti-breaching Treaty "Principles" Bill has no future. Which is good, but if they're not going to vote for it at second reading, why even go through the farce of giving it a first? Especially when the racist outpouring ACT and its white supremacist allies hope to whip up at select committee will inflict further damage on our society?

Meanwhile, Rimmer is simply not getting the message, and still seems to think he can persuade National and NZ First to vote for his steaming pile of racist horseshit. Which means he's either completely delusional, or he's planning to destabilise the government and sabotage the rest of its agenda, or even topple it, unless he gets his own way. And given what a fanatic racist he is, the latter can't be ruled out. Which means the opposition parties might want to make sure they have a plan for an early election next year, just in case...

A malevolent authoritarian

One of the fundamentals of the New Zealand government system is consultation. On a broad scale, policy proposals generally need to go through a consultation process with the public, or at least with key stakeholders. And within government, agencies are required to consult each other, with Cabinet requiring formal checks to ensure this is done on certain issues. There are good reasons for this: it stops the government from working at cross-purposes and undermining its own policy agenda, it mitigates against groupthink and silos within agencies, it allows the impacts of policies to be accurately identified, and (most importantly) it stops the government making huge mistakes. But Rimmer thinks it takes too long, so he wants to end it. But only for certain voices, of course:

Minister for Regulation David Seymour is frustrated at the way population ministries can slow down the business of government.

Most proposals have to be farmed out to population ministries like the Ministries for Women, Māori, and Pacific Peoples asking whether they think any policy changes will impact the people they are responsible for.

If the ministries have anything to say, and often they do not, their comments are put in a box on the final Cabinet Paper.

Some papers also receive a climate impact assessment, which triggers if the proposal is likely to have an impact on New Zealand’s emissions reduction goals.

Speaking to On the Tiles, the Herald’s politics podcast, Seymour said this slowed things down and that he was keen to change it, although a final proposal had not gone to other ministers.

Seymour said he believed too many of these ministries were consulted when drafting Cabinet papers.

This is a crystal clear statement of which voices Rimmer think matter and which don't - and in the latter category is everyone who isn't a polluting white male. But its also a clear statement of how he wants to govern: by silencing anyone who might speak out against his far-right agenda, and censoring advice which might accurately identify the impacts of his policies. Which is also something you can see in his command that schools punish climate strikers. The man is a nasty malevolent authoritarian. The question is how much we are going to let him undermine our democracy.

Luxon can't be trusted on Te Tiriti

When the new government's coalition agreements were released last year, the most shocking aspect was National's agreement to an explicitly racist campaign to repudiate Te Tiriti o Waitangi, replacing it with some weirdo Libertarian charter. Luxon has spent the last four months trying to say that he was forced to agree to this as the price of power (that is, he has no moral character and was happy to throw Māori under the bus so he could call himself "Right Honourable" for a few years), and that he had only agreed to support it to select committee. As the unpopularity of destroying the foundation of the New Zealand state has become apparent, he has focused more and more on the latter, saying that it was unlikely that National would support the bill any further. And yesterday, after his disastrous performance at Waitangi, he went further, ruling it out completely. The problem? Rimmer doesn't believe him:

ACT leader David Seymour is refusing to back down on his controversial Treaty Principles Bill, saying he believes the Prime Minister's opinion can be changed.

Seymour believes Prime Minister Christopher Luxon was "nervous" after Waitangi and could still back his Treaty Principles Bill despite ruling out doing so.

[...]

But Seymour is undeterred by Luxon's comments and came out with fighting words when he joined AM on Thursday morning.

"I mean, last week, he wouldn't rule out supporting it further, yesterday he would. I think perhaps he got a bit nervous after Waitangi," he told AM co-host Lloyd Burr.

But there was one part of Luxon's comments that Seymour said he didn't believe.

"But ultimately the bit I don't believe is he won't change his mind if the public really wants it," he said.

Rimmer is quite clear that he is trying to twist Luxon's arm on this. And it seems likely that he will get away with it. Because no matter what Luxon says, at the end of the day, Rimmer gets to decide whether he remains Prime Minister or not. And he has already shown a willingness to use that to impose a racist, white supremacist agenda on Aotearoa, and Luxon has already grovelled in the face of it. Given that, it is likely that he will do so again.

So here is what will happen: National will make a lot of noise opposing the bill at first reading, while voting it to select committee "as part of the coalition agreement". It may even order its MPs to issue a negative report on it at select committee. And then Rimmer will threaten to roll the government unless he gets his way and the bill is passed. And the question then is whether Luxon, a man who has already backed down to this once, will show some moral character and stand up against Rimmer's divisive racism, or whether he will meekly roll over and in effect allow Rimmer to dictate to his whole government. And unfortunately, I think we all know the answer to that one.

Robbing from the poor to pay the rich

That's the only way to describe David Seymour's latest tax proposal:

ACT campaigned on flattening the current five-tiered tax system down to three rates by 2026/27.

In simple terms, ACT would immediately axe the lowest tax threshold of 10.5 percent, meaning the government would collect more revenue from all income earners.

Some of that extra revenue would then be returned to low-and-middle income earners through a targeted tax credit to ensure they were not worse off.

The money left over would allow the government to reduce the higher tax rates at the top of the income scale - dropping the 33 percent rate to 30, and the 39 percent rate to 33.

Rimmer calls this "simplification". But taking money from people and then giving some of it back to them isn't simple - its complex. Meanwhile, "some of" is doing a lot of work there, and if no-one was really left any worse off then there would be no point, because there would be no money to lower other rates. What will happen in reality is that Rimmer's credits will be a token (and then done away with because of complexity), the poor will be taxed more heavily, and their money given to rich pricks like Rimmer. Who, in case anyone has forgotten, is on $296,007 plus slush, which will increase to $334,734 when he replaces Winston as Deputy PM. How many poor people will he have to pillage for his tax cut?

A better alternative would be to tax rich people like Rimmer more heavily, both to discourage those causes of social division, and to help fund the public services we need. But a Cabinet of people paid $296,007 a year are hardly likely to vote for that, are they?

National's racism breaches Te Tiriti

In their coalition agreement with ACT, the National government agreed to advance a bill unilaterally redefining the Tiriti relationship. That bill is apparently going through the policy process, and the Ministry of Justice has pointed out the obvious: its a breach of Te Tiriti:

But the ministry raises major compliance issues. It has sent the document, also known as a legal bid, to various Government departments for consultation.

The report's author says: "I expect the Bill may be highly contentious. This is due to both the fundamental constitutional nature of the subject matter and the lack of consultation with the public on the policy development prior to Select Committee.

"The Bill will also change the nature of the principles from reflecting a relationship akin to a partnership between the Crown and Māori to reflecting the relationship the Crown has with all citizens of New Zealand. This is not supported by either the spirit of the Treaty or the text of the Treaty."

[...]

"Developing a Bill that purports to settle the Treaty principles without working with the Treaty partner could be seen as one partner (the Crown) attempting to define what the Treaty means and the obligations it creates."

And if they don't listen to the Ministry of Justice, I'm sure the Waitangi Tribunal will be willing to tell them, far more forcefully.

National has been trying to back away from this ever since they realised that outright racism isn't as popular with the public as it is with ACT's kook supporters. But they agreed to this, so they own it. And if they don't want to be the party that tried to rip Aotearoa down the middle, they need to tell Rimmer and his racist mates to go fuck themselves.

(Meanwhile, Labour has a clear opportunity here to kill this and position themselves on the right side of history and public opinion, just by saying "we will repeal it immediately". But that would require them to actually stand for something, rather than being afraid of their own shadows...)

Wannabe mass-murderers

Yesterday the government took an unexpected decision to retain existing covid protections - already so weak that basically all we have left is a requirement to isolate when sick. And naturally, the opposition is outraged by this:

New Zealand is being labelled a global oddity and "Hermit Kingdom redux" by opposition parties decrying the government's decision to extend the Covid-19 isolation rules.

Ministers yesterday reviewed the mandated seven-day isolation period and decided to keep it in place for at least another two months while they wait for more advice on a potential test-to-release strategy.

ACT leader David Seymour said the government was embarrassingly and bafflingly out of step with most of the world in persisting with the "draconian" requirement.

"New Zealand is becoming almost a kind of Hermit Kingdom 2.0 redux in 2023. Actually, what we need to do is move on and start embracing normality."

Yes, we're "out of step" with the rest of the world: we can see it in their body counts. Thinking this is a Bad Thing is an example of how business-think values conformity over actual results. And as for "normality", eight people died of covid last week, and its on track to kill a thousand people this year. Anyone who thinks that is "normal" is deranged. Anyone who thinks a thousand deaths a year is an acceptable price to pay for business-as-usual is a sociopathic wannabe mass-murderer, who should not be trusted in charge of a kebab stand, let alone a country. If this is the quality of our opposition, we should all be very, very afraid of how many of us they will kill if they get elected.

ACT cuddles up to the antivaxxers

Since the anti-vax plague camp was set up on Parliament's lawn last week, complete with nooses and death threats, I've been wondering how long it would take for the right to start cuddling up to it. And today, predictably, ACT's David Seymour did:

ACT leader David Seymour has met with a Parliament protest "intermediary" to deliver conditions to be met for dialogue with lawmakers.

Seymour said on Wednesday he had met with the unnamed intermediary out the back of the Backbencher, a pub across the road from Parliament forced to close due to the week-long protest which has blocked traffic in the surrounding area of central Wellington.

In case anyone has forgotten, this protest has included assaults on local residents, multiple threats to lynch MPs, a convicted white supremacist threatening to execute politicians, and calls for the military to stage a coup to overthrow the elected government. But clearly, Seymour doesn't have a problem with any of that (neither, sadly, do "Wellington business leaders"). And we should judge him and his party for that at the next election.

Member's Day: The choice on End of Life Choice

Today is a Member's Day, probably the second-to-last one of the year, and its a big one, with the Third Reading of David Seymour's End of Life Choice Bill. last Member's Day it was reported back from committee, after MPs voted narrowly to make it subject to a (rules TBA) referendum. This week, we get to see if enough of them are happy with that compromise. Polling from Stuff suggests they are, and that the bill will pass comfortably with 70 votes. Its a two-hour debate, so we should find out just before 6pm.

After that, the House will move on to the third reading of Todd Muller's Companies (Clarification of Dividend Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill and the second reading of Ian McKelvie's Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill. Neither of these should be especially contentious, so I expect they'll make a start on the second reading of Rino Tirikatene's Electoral (Entrenchment of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill as well. There is unlikely to be a ballot tomorrow, and looking at the order paper, there probably won't be one till next year.

Member's Day: End of Life Choice, part 3

Today is a Member's day, and David Seymour's End of Life Choice Bill continues its slow crawl through its committee stage. They're spending the whole day on it today, though the first hour is likely to be spent on voting left over from last time. After that they'll move on to part 3 of the Bill, and then another round of long, boring personal votes. There's still a couple of weeks left of this, but the majority for change seems to be holding up, and the bill looks like it will get its third reading and become law in late October.

This is not acceptable in a democracy

Last week, ACT leader David Seymour called Green MP Golriz Ghahraman "a real menace to freedom in this country" over her views on hate speech. He said this in an environment where Ghahraman regularly receives death threats. And now, thanks to him, she needs a police escort:

Green GP Golriz Ghahraman is now accompanied by a police escort at all times following a series of death threats.

The MP has seen a significant escalation in threats of violence following comments by ACT MP David Seymour, a source told Stuff.

Seymour told radio host Sean Plunket that: "Golriz Ghahraman is a real menace to freedom in this country" in a Magic Talk segment on hate speech.

A Green party source said there had been a jump in disturbing threats to the Auckland-based MP since the comments last weekend.

Seymour is basicly trying to get one of his political opponents murdered. But I guess that's what ACT, the "party of freedom" stands for now: the "freedom" of racists to threaten and even murder anyone they want.

Needless to say, this ought to be completely unacceptable in a democracy. And if you live in Epsom, and you voted for this racist thug, I hope you're really proud of yourself.

Cheap at twice the price

In Parliament to day, opportunistic hologram David Seymour attacked the government's proposed gun buyback scheme, claiming that it would be costly and unsuccessful. Its success is obviously up to gun owners and police - and I would hope that they take a hard line on criminals hoarding prohibited weapons. But as for cost, the buyback would be cheap at twice the price.

Just do the maths. There are 300,000 gun owners in New Zealand. Not all of them will own illegal semi-automatic weapons, but a large proportion will. After today, those who do not turn over their weapons will be criminals, subject to five years imprisonment. That's a high enough penalty to require a jury trial, which costs over $1,000 a day in jury costs alone. A judge costs another $1,000 a day, the prosecutor twice that, plus there are court staff. So, the cost of simply bringing these people to trial is ~$5,000 a head. Prosecuting all of them would cost ~$1.5 billion, and that's without even getting into the astronomical cost of punishment ($300 / day, plus building thirty times as many prison cells as we have at present).

Or, we can just buy their now-illegal guns. Its cheaper. Its unquestionably easier. Its more humane than throwing people in jail. And it would let police focus their resources on the gun owners who refuse to turn over or account for their weapons, meaning much better enforcement. But I guess ACT isn't interested in any of those things.

Passed

Last night, Parliament debated David Seymour's End of Life Choice Bill - and voted 76-44 to send it to committee. Its an overwhelming vote, much larger than the bare majority I think people were expecting. And while some of it is due to NZ First's agreement to vote it forward if Seymour agreed to support a referendum clause, it still had enough support to get over the line without them.

So now the battle moves to the select committee. The bigots (including foreign bigots) are lobbying heavily on this, just as they did over homosexual law reform, civil unions, and marriage equality. So if you support the bill, its important to speak up for it. I'll post details on how to submit when they go up.

The good news is that with 77 votes for first reading, the bill has a high likelihood of passing. There will undoubtedly be amendments from the committee, but they are likely to be technical rather than substantive. Though there will be a strategic question about whether Seymour continues with the referendum path, or just opts for a straight up or down vote. I guess we'll find that out late next year.

Contracts and incentives

Yesterday we learned that some of National's charter schools were not all they're cracked up to be, with two violating contractual limits on expulsions and others failing to meet academic targets. So are they being punished for failing to meet the terms of their contract? Yeah, right:

Mr Seymour said the government was in discussion with Vanguard about its suspension and expulsion figures.

"The reason that we're in discussion rather than punishing them at this stage is simply the fact that first of all they have an ethos that is working extremely well. They have a very high discipline mantra and that has led to higher levels of exclusion and expulsion then you'd otherwise get."

Mr Seymour said it was also important to take into account that many of the school's students had struggled at other schools.

The whole idea behind the NeoLiberal policy of privatisation and contracting out is that management by contract provides clear incentives to providers to perform. Except that that fails to consider the other incentive in the system: the incentive on politicians who sold this snake oil to declare them a success. So as with Serco's private prisons, when the schools fail, they are not punished - because to actually enforce the contract would mean Seymour admitting that he had made a mistake. And so the contractors get to rip us off, and laugh all the way to the bank. And their victims - kids - receive a substandard education while they do it.

Frivolous, vexatious, or trivial?

Just before FYI went down, someone submitted an OIA request asking whether ACT MP David Seymour was a hologram. Now that FYI is back up, the response has appeared, and the request has been declined on the basis that "the request is frivolous or vexatious or that the information requested is trivial". But which is it? And is the decline lawful? According to the Ombudsman's guidelines, in order to be declined under this clause,

a requester must be patently abusing the rights granted by the legislation for access to information, rather than exercising those rights in good faith.

By analogy with court processes, this means that the request must be so clearly frivolous that to put it forward would be an abuse of process, or such that no reasonable person could properly treat it as being made in good faith. But I'm not sure that that's the case. I mean, have you looked at Seymour?

And then he practically admits it:

@norightturnnz for the record I was programmed to fully cooperate.

— David Seymour (@dbseymour) April 11, 2015

So, maybe they're really refusing the request as trivial, because the answer is bloody obvious.

(And seriously, while we'd all like to think that its obvious that someone isn't a hologram, or indeed a "David Icke style shapeshifting reptilian alien ushering humanity towards enslavement", sometimes it isn't. For example, when the Prime Minister laughs off the Auckland housing crisis (which has no doubt added significantly to the value of his property portfolio). If the Prime Minister doesn't want people asking whether he's an alien here to destroy our way of life, maybe he shouldn't act like one so often).

Closing a loophole in the OIA

A key part of National's confidence and supply agreement with ACT is the appointment of ACT's sole MP David Seymour as Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Minister of Education and Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Minister for Regulatory Reform. Its pure patronage, providing Seymour with staff, a fancy title and a $25,000 pay rise in exchange for doing nothing (Seymour has no delegated authorities). But the appointment exposed a hole in the OIA, in that Parliamentary Under Secretaries are not covered, despite theoretically doing important government work.

Now Labour's Adrian Rurawhe is proposing to fix that hole, with a Member's Bill which would bring PUS's under the OIA. The mechanism is simple: insert a definition of "Minister of the Crown" which includes PUSes. If it passes, we'd be able to ask David Seymour exactly what it is that he does in exchange for that $25,000 a year. The question is whether the supposedly pro-transparency, pro-accountability ACT MP will vote for it.

Correction: So, Seymour does in fact have delegated authorities; I missed them because PUSes were at the end of the file. I apologise for the error.

Holograms, reptilians, and the OIA

This week's amusing OIA request: is David Seymour a hologram? He's denied it, even offered to let people feel him (at "$5 a feel", of course - ACT members don't give it away for free), but this proves nothing: while he doesn't have an "H" on his forehead, he still has that uncanny resemblance to Arnold Rimmer, and he could be hard-light.

And seriously, how do you respond to this sort of OIA? While it could be dismissed as frivolous (because no reasonable person could actually believe that David Seymour was an Arnold Rimmer clone, could they?), that's hassle. The Prime Minister's office has been here before, when they were asked whether John Key was a shapeshifting reptilian alien ushering humanity towards enslavement. And they took the easy way out: a refusal under s18(e) as "the document alleged to contain the information requested does not exist or cannot be found".

"Silly" OIA requests are a fact of life. There will always be some, the difference is that now with the internet we get to hear about them. And we get to see how the government (and David Seymour) responds.