Do you have any specific issues relating primarily to OIA?
by Talklaw Project Coordinator 10:31am, 9 December 2009
You will need to login
or sign up to do that
This discussion topic is closed. You can still review the discussion but it will no longer accept comments or votes.
felix marwick Comment 1
5:43pm, 9 December 2009
1
0 
The scope of the OIA should be broadened to cover Parliamentary Services. While this is primarily a matter for Parliament and its Speaker it seems inconsistent that an area, where significant amounts of public money are spent, is not subject to the same checks and balances as are other public departments.
Despite the political reservations the same level of scrutiny should apply. the application of the OIA should be consistent across the board.
james hollings Comment 1.1
3:22pm, 2 February 2010
0
0
I agree, it's absurd and quite unjustifiable that PS are not covered. Overall, despite the wonderful efforts by some of those in the Ombudsman's Office, the Act is still not working well. Too much depends on the energy and integrity of the Ombudsman's Office, which is ultimately subject to political interference, through appointment. To be a true check on power, it should be free of executive influence; e.g. appointed by the courts, or public vote. As any journalist will tell you, vast amounts of important information are still kept secret at the whim of government officials, who can stonewall for months or years with impunity, often simply to protect their own reputation. This constricts debate to those in the know and hinders good governance, because important policy questions are often not exposed to the full range of public opinion and useful scrutiny. We need more open and robust debate on issues in this country. I would argue a more open attitude to information would help achieve this, without compromising our relatively consensual political process, nor slowing it down unduly. Deadlines for decision-making can still be made, even if more people are questioning them.
