OIA and Parliament

February 7th, 2013 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

Isaac Davidson writes in the NZ Herald:

The Government’s decision not to extend the Official Information Act to is “entirely specious”, a former Prime Minister and president of the Law Commission says.

I’m amused that so many supporters of opening Parliament to the , refused to do so when they were in Parliament and could have done so.

In announcing the proposals on Monday, Justice Minister Judith Collins said New Zealand had an open government by international standards and Parliament already made a great deal of information available.

She told the Herald yesterday: “While it may be tempting for a Government to have access to Opposition parties’ research and funding data, extending the OIA to include the offices of Parliament would see Opposition parties unnecessarily scrutinised.”

A lot of people don’t realise this. Ministers are already subject to the OIA, so extending it would actually be giving the Government the ability to file OIAs to the Opposition seeking draft policy papers, staff advice, spending details etc.

The Green Party supported the proposal to extend the OIA to parliamentary business, but the Labour Party did not.

My view is that the OIA should apply to Parliament for financial matters, but not documents and communications. As stated above, I think it would be chilling and unfair to Opposition MPs to have to battle OIA requests around their political strategy, draft policies etc. However their expenditure of public money is a different matter, and hence my compromise is to have financial documents come under the OIA. It is worth noting of course that since 2009 there has been a huge increase in financial transparency already.

Labour’s open government spokeswoman, Clare Curran, said her party instead supported proactive release of documents to a dedicated website.

That is a good idea.

Tags: ,

4 Responses to “OIA and Parliament”

  1. In Vino Veritas (138 comments) says:

    A dedicated website? Hopefully not created by Labour or having anything to do with them. They have history in this sort of thing and its not good.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Labour’s open government spokeswoman, Clare Curran, said her party instead supported proactive release of documents to a dedicated website.

    Great. She can get the ball rolling by publishing all correspondance related to her being hired by David Parker back in 2007.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. davidp (3,556 comments) says:

    I’d like to apply for the Labour leadership election vote counts. Real transparency and democracy demands that I know who is voting for Shearer and who is voting for Cunliffe.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. tvb (4,240 comments) says:

    I assume not extending the OIA to Parliament has the same reasons that applied when Sir Geoffrey looked at this matter. Nothing on that front has changed. And Sir Geoffrey yelling at people at the top of his very loud voice is not an argument with any reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.