Page 668 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
To suggest that this is some sort of knocked-together, nobbled review, as suggested by Mrs Dunne and Mr Rattenbury, really does them a great disservice. This is recognised as the most authoritative and contemporary review to date. I would draw to the attention of Mrs Dunne and Mr Rattenbury the comments made by Mr Solomon in the review when it came to these types of documents that we are talking about. I want to read some of the review for the information of members. Mr Solomon said:
There would be a real governance problem if the FOI law was to inhibit the free and frank provision of information by officials to Ministers.
He goes on to say:
In New Zealand, where the disclosure of such information is apparently quite common—
through the Official Information Act—
a recent study by Nicola White suggests, nevertheless, that some negative effects have emerged.
He goes on to quote Nicola White, who wrote Free and frank—making the Official Information Act 1982 work better, Institute of Policy Studies in New Zealand. She said:
It is also evident, however, that the openness has come at a price. Papers are written differently; if it is obvious that a paper will become public, it will inevitably be written with an eye to a public audience. The processes adjust to reflect the new reality. A Cabinet paper that will be released within hours or days of the decision being made is unlikely to be a vehicle for a full and free advice. Rather, it is likely to be an exposition of the reasoning behind the decisions the government is making. Similarly, now that it is customary for post-election briefs—
incoming government briefs—
or briefings to incoming ministers, to be published fairly quickly, their content has become largely anodyne. It is not conducive to building effective working relationships to greet a new minister with a document that is about to [be] published that contains political bombshells.
That is the end of the quote from White. Solomon goes on to say:
Nor, it must be said, is the building of effective relationships between Ministers and officials likely to be encouraged if a minister decides to release or leak political bombshells that their officials have documented, even where they reflect on a previous administration. Again, they may make officials less likely to give Ministers the full benefit of their departmental experience.
Nicola White interviewed many public servants in preparing her review of the Official Information Act in New Zealand, where provisions exist for these documents that the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .