The government would like our attention to shift from its very bad week to an announcement of an announcement about the fast-tracking of a second harbour crossing in Auckland.
If we judge them by the lack of progress on so many of their announcements of other grand plans we can be confident that whichever option is chosen will be on a slow track.
Meanwhile, in spite of their efforts to distract us, those who care about high standards have not been mollified by the explanation without apology from Marama Davidson.
While the attempted diversion by bridge or tunnel was going on, questions around Stuart Nash's misdeeds got even more serious:
Labour MP Stuart Nash appears to have improperly withheld the June 2020 email that forced prime minister Chris Hipkins to sack him as a minister for "inexcusable" behaviour, lending support to accusations by National Party leader Christopher Luxon of a "cover-up" and highlighting systemic issues with the Official Information Act. . .
On June 8, 2021, Newsroom made a request to Nash's office under the Official Information Act for "All written correspondence and details of the nature and substance of any other communication since the start of 2020" between Nash and 19 of his political donors. Included on the list of donors was Troy Bowker. Given that the June 2020 email to Bowker concerned discussions Nash was having in his capacity as a minister, it appears that the June 2020 email fell within the scope of Newsroom's request.
In August 2021, however, Nash's office responded, "I hold nothing that is within the scope of your request as the Act relates only to information provided to me as minister. I must therefore refuse your request under section 18(e) of the Official Information Act as the information does not exist or cannot be found."
Failing to disclose documents within the scope of a valid request without justification is a breach of the Official Information Act. Nash has been approached for comment.
Both Nash's office and the office of then-Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern were aware of the existence of the June 2020 email at the time Nash's office responded to Newsroom's OIA request. On Tuesday afternoon, Hipkins told reporters that Nash's office had notified staff in Ardern's office that the June 2020 email existed and that they were excluding it from their response to a 2021 OIA request. Whether that was Newsroom's request is not clear, but the timing indicates that it was.
On Thursday afternoon, the Prime Minister's Office released a statement attributing the withholding of information to staff oversight.
"Two staff members in the Prime Minister's Office, deputy Chief of Staff Holly Donald and a senior advisor were aware of the original OIA. Only the senior advisor was aware of a subsequent complaint to the Ombudsman.
"It was not escalated to the former Prime Minister or the former Chief of Staff at any point."
Both staff had reportedly apologised for their error of judgment in "not recognising the significance of the email and escalating it at the time". . . .
If senior staff did not understand that the PM and Chief of Staff needed to know about this it's a very poor reflection on them and their judgement. It also raises a question of how many other times this happened because of their ignorance.
An alternative to that is that the staff did understand who needed to know and deliberately didn't move it upstairs to protect the minister and the government.
Neither of those are good and there is another alternative: that The PM and CoS did know and the staff are being sacrificed.
Any of the three add evidence to the assertion that the government's claims of openness and transparency are words without matching action.
They all show a disdain for democracy, as does what the New Zealand Initiative describes as a farce of a parliamentary process:
The New Zealand Initiative has damned the consultation process for the Severe Weather Emergency Recovery Legislation Bill. It urges that the Bill be amended to force rigorous [MB1] post-enactment scrutiny, with the legislation repealed by 30 September if that scrutiny does not take place.
The Government and Administration Committee sent an email at 9:00 pm on Tuesday 28 March, calling for submissions by 5:00 pm the following day, Wednesday 29 March. This move has left submitters with less than 24 hours to respond, a timeframe that Executive Director Dr Oliver Hartwich has described as "outrageous."
Hartwich further emphasised that the bill is not a "harmless run-of-the-mill bill" but a powerful tool that could effectively suspend primary legislation and grant broad powers to the Minister over an extended period. He expressed disappointment in the lack of democratic etiquette demonstrated by the government, particularly in light of the entrenchment fiasco last year.
The Initiative's Chief Economist, Dr Eric Crampton, echoed Hartwich's sentiments, stating that the legislation had received no prior scrutiny and that the current process provided no opportunity for appropriate deliberation. Crampton criticised the select committee process as an insult to those invited to submit and to parliamentary democracy.
In its 2018 report, "Recipe for Disaster: Building Policy on Shaky Ground", the Initiative recommended that off-the-shelf legislation be prepared well before any disaster, with appropriate scrutiny and consideration.
The government cannot undo its failure to adequately prepare for emergency situations. But it can require immediate post-implementation review of the legislation, with a more rigorous and appropriate Select Committee process to amend it. In its one-page submission, this is what the Initiative recommends.
The Initiative views this episode as a shameful moment in New Zealand's parliamentary democracy.
The Taxpayer's Union says this ministerial power grab must be stopped:
The New Zealand Taxpayers' Union condemns the Government's decision to allow only one day for written submissions on the Severe Weather Emergency Recovery Legislation Bill.
The proposed legislation would allow a minister to exempt, modify, or extend provisions of almost any piece of legislation without any form of democratic scrutiny.
Taxpayers' Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves says:
"This bill would give ministers extensive powers, some lasting until 2028, that would allow them to take action in a range of areas with no democratic parliamentary scrutiny.
"Not only is this ministerial power grab an extremely disproportionate response to the situation, but the government is trying to rush the legislation through with submitters only having a single day to make their views known.
"This truncated process, and the attitude towards democracy shown by some of our lawmakers, is dangerous. Lawmaking at this pace inevitably means mistakes will be made with potentially serious consequences.
"We have already seen emergency powers being abused by ministers wasting billions of taxpayer dollars with the COVID-19 slush fund, this time they are reaching for even more power.
"This legislation would set a dangerous precedent for future governments to seize the opportunity of an emergency to make a ministerial power grab.
"This bill and its token consultation make a mockery of the parliamentary process."
The government hasn't learned from the mistake it made last year in its attempt to undermine democracy by entrenching provisions of its Three Five Waters legislation.
Democracy and the part proper parliamentary process plays in it are a necessary part of good governance and essential for the maintenance of trust in the government.
It's very convenient for the government that this has gone almost unnoticed while attention is focused on its other messes.
It's attempt to further divert attention from the messes with its announcement of an announcement of a bridge or tunnel that will go nowhere fast adds confirms its lie of openness and transparency and shows yet more disdain for democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment