To do list

Written By: - Date published: 1:20 pm, November 12th, 2008 - 66 comments
Categories: john key, national/act government - Tags:

Getting elected is easy if you promise people the world and tell different audience different, contradictory things. It’s especially easy when you’ve got the media whole-heartedly on your side.

Governing is a bit tougher though. Those same commentators who thought it was great fun regurgitating your latest attack line will also find it great fun attacking you. Remember, politics is just a game to them. More importantly though, the people who voted for you expect you to deliver on the expectations you’ve created.

Let’s have a look at that list of expectations National has created, based on both what National has promised and what most National voters believe National will do, based on comments in our ‘a change to what?’ posts:

– more rapid growth
– higher wages
– better healthcare
– better education
– lower interest rates
– lower inflation
– lower crime
– no reductions in Super
– fund Plunketline
– fewer people on benefits
– no more ‘power crises’
– repeal the ETS
– abolish Maori seats
– no cuts to Working for Families
– no blow out in government debt
– more infrastructure investment
– standardised testing from year 1
– reduced poverty
– cleaner waterways
– Disabled children have fully funded school support
– NZ getting to the top of the OECD.
– no abuse of the 90-day no work rights period
– no dysfunction from privatised ACC
– repeal the amendments to s59
– longer prison sentences
– bootcamps stopping youth crime
– lower tax
– ultra-fast broadband to the home in a few years
– lower greenhouse emissions
– fewer core public servants
– improved public services
– higher savings rates, more sign-up to Kiwisaver
– no sale of Kiwibank
– cheap toll roads
– no more congestion
– lower emigration
– no government scandals
– no trouble with support parties
– Herceptin funded
– revamp EFA but don’t bring back secret trusts, anonymous donations
– national testing in schools
– no individual case failures of health, education, or other government services
– investment in Kiwirail

Key will need to deliver or there will be some mightily disappointed voters.

[updates. yes Key has said he won’t repeal the s59 amendment but National also purposely used it as an example of something bad Labour did, they created an expectation that it will be removed and that’s what matters for the purposes of this list. If I’ve forgotten anyhting please let me know.]

66 comments on “To do list ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Pat 1
    12 November 2008 at 1:23 pm

    – No Roger Douglas in cabinet. (Tick)
    – Whenuapai to remain an airforce base. (Tick)

  2. Lampie 2
    12 November 2008 at 1:31 pm

    repeal the ETS (cross)

    Keep that list handy please Steve, we could all do with a reminder

  3. John Stevens 3
    12 November 2008 at 1:36 pm

    Reform the EFA is another one, even Goff admits it was a mistake.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/vote08/4758646a28435.html
    I would keep it now as it can be a tool to blunt the unions in 2011. Teach you lefties a lesson:)

  4. the sprout 4
    12 November 2008 at 1:37 pm

    I must confess a guilty pleasure looking forward to National’s impending disembowelment as voters start to wake up to how hollow National’s election promises will prove.

  5. Robinsod 5
    12 November 2008 at 1:48 pm

    I just read the Herald readers’ responses to Banks’ cuts to Auckland infrastructure. All the commenters who were bleating on about Helengrad last week are now bleating on about how they’re getting their services cut!

    And I thought they would appreciate a bit of solid right-wing policy…

    Ha. Ha. Ha.

    http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/your-views/2008/11/12/do-proposed-cuts-auckland-city-services-go-too-far/?c_id=1501154&commentpage=1

  6. Lampie 6
    12 November 2008 at 1:53 pm

    better education (cross) aLready ruled out that testing crap

  7. Chris G 7
    12 November 2008 at 1:58 pm

    Repeal S59 (Cross) – *Roll on the horrified looks of the old voters/Spare the Rod Spoil the Child voters who voted for Key thinking he’d change that*

    My Favourite:
    -“Cleaner Waterways” [A Most Definate Cross]

    That’ll be a breeze with a more ‘streamlined’ RMA…. ohhhh Really?

    Streamlined RMA is a euphemism (with respect to waterways) for an increase in irresponsible point source discharges, waterway diversions and irrigation schemes.

  8. randal 8
    12 November 2008 at 2:01 pm

    clamp down immediately on all the remaining dweebs who are running their cars with no mufflers
    New Zealanders are entitled to peace in their environment and if Key and his cronies cant do this then they aint worth nothing!

  9. randal 9
    12 November 2008 at 2:04 pm

    clamp down immediately on all the remaining dweebs who are running their cars with no mufflers
    New Zealanders are entitled to peace in their environment and if Key and his cronies cant do this then they aint worth nothing!
    the labour party gave up on the run up to the election now it is up to National to finish the job
    get on to it immediately else your promises are garbage

  10. Chris G 10
    12 November 2008 at 2:13 pm

    Although I cant tell how serious you are randal. if ‘Gettn Tuff on Crims’ involves limiting the power of boy racers. Then that would probably add to the Very Small List of Things National Did That I Applauded.

  11. Lampie 11
    12 November 2008 at 2:15 pm

    Good fine Sod, hahaha what a laugh

  12. John Dalley 12
    12 November 2008 at 2:20 pm

    Start a poll on how long it will take for National to start backing away from their election promises.
    ‘Under a month is my opening bet. (Tick)

  13. bobo 13
    12 November 2008 at 2:21 pm

    Will be interesting to see that list again in 3 years time to see which ones have ticks and crosses against them.

  14. Scribe 14
    12 November 2008 at 2:23 pm

    So National is going to be held responsible for doing things voters incorrectly thought it was going to do, e.g. Section 59?

    Key never once suggested the party would do reverse the repeal of S59 (unless it was failing, which he says it’s not), so it’s unfair to hold him accountable for uneducated people.

    The rest seem fair (albeit presented baldly)

  15. Janet 15
    12 November 2008 at 2:27 pm

    Let’s bring this up every three or six months to see how they’re going.

  16. Lampie 16
    12 November 2008 at 2:29 pm

    You saying that we should keep the Nanny state Scribe? You the PC police?

    They have to Scribe.

  17. Janet 17
    12 November 2008 at 2:32 pm

    Two more
    Disabled children have fully funded school support.
    NZ getting to the top of the OECD.
    (just heard both of these from National voters in last couple of days)

    By the way how do you measure what ‘better’ means eg better education?

  18. bobo 18
    12 November 2008 at 2:33 pm

    Janet – A National Party standards report card since they like testing so much 🙂 too many photo ops with kittens in class must try harder…

    add – record low numbers of kiwi’s heading to aus

  19. Pascal's bookie 19
    12 November 2008 at 2:36 pm

    Diddums Scribe. 😉

    Man got elected based on perceptions, gonsta get judged by them too. We didn’t make the rules, and it’s not our fault the National party has been dogwhistling a discordant symphony in bleugh.

    So suck it up, and stop calling Key’s base uneducated ya fncking elitist!

  20. gobsmacked 20
    12 November 2008 at 2:50 pm

    Scribe

    Fair comment on Key’s overall Section 59 position (although there were some mixed signals to Family First at times).

    But in 2009 there will be a referendum, by law. He’ll need to take a position on (a) how he will vote and (b) how he will respond to the result, which will almost certainly be interpreted as a rejection of the current law.

    He made great play of Clark delaying the referendum until after the election (and we all know that was predictable politics on both sides). He said that Clark was “suppressing democracy”.

    It’ll be interesting to see which way he jumps. Either way, he will disappoint people who voted for him.

  21. Janet 21
    12 November 2008 at 3:02 pm

    There will be a lot of pressure on Nat MPs from their constituents when that referendum with its incomprehensible questions returns an 87% yes vote. Will be very tricky for Key.

    He will have to explain to the UN why NZ is going against the declaration on the rights of the child.

    Does he want international headline: NZ government passes law to hit children!

  22. Billy 22
    12 November 2008 at 3:11 pm

    Getting elected is easy if you promise people the world and tell different audience different, contradictory things. It’s especially easy when you’ve got the media whole-heartedly on your side.

    You’re taking this quite badly, aren’t you, SP. I hope you will not shortly embark on a “New Zealand sucks” campaign.

  23. Tim Ellis 23
    12 November 2008 at 3:11 pm

    I struggle to see how people can put crosses against things that National promised but haven’t achieved in their first term, when John Key’s government hasn’t even been sworn in yet.

    It would be interesting to put up a list of things that various left wingers said John Key would do, and judge the Labour Party according to how accurate those predictions turned out.

    For starters, Labour said National would:

    Sell Kiwibank
    Sell Kiwirail
    Sell SOEs
    Appoint Roger Douglas to Cabinet
    Deal with Winston

  24. gingercrush 24
    12 November 2008 at 3:16 pm

    Rather than have a To Do List for what John Key and his government should do, will do, can’t do. How about making a To Do List for what Labour can do during these three years to get themselves back into office. Because the way you lot on the left are taking it. Seems to me, you think this government will fail and that is how you get back into government. Go down that track and you’ve set yourselves to fail. Because you have nothing for why people should vote again Centre-Left you just have a hope that the new government will fail.

  25. Ianmac 25
    12 November 2008 at 3:16 pm

    Chris G: “Streamlined RMA is a euphemism (with respect to waterways) for an increase in irresponsible point source discharges, waterway diversions and irrigation schemes.”
    Over the last 8 years in the USA, those rules were taken out so that for instance the huge piggeries set up as vast units, could dispose of the effluent anywhere, and usually into rivers. Let alone the vast smell stretching to distant towns. Freedom you see. No more Nanny USA State.

  26. Killinginthenameof 26
    12 November 2008 at 3:20 pm

    “randal
    clamp down immediately on all the remaining dweebs who are running their cars with no mufflers
    New Zealanders are entitled to peace in their environment and if Key and his cronies cant do this then they aint worth nothing!
    the labour party gave up on the run up to the election now it is up to National to finish the job”

    I didn’t really want to have to go into the topic of boy racers, i’m not sure too many people here care, but since this is the second time in two days its been brought up i’ll explain a bit.

    Car exhausts cannot be be louder than 95dB, at 4000rpm (3500 for v8’s or rear engined cars) as measured from 2 meters away.

    The main police enforcement tool for this is a “green sticker”, if you get one of them, you are only allowed to drive the car straight home, and to a pre arranged appointment at a VTNZ testing station.

    A police officer can give out a green sticker when he ‘thinks’ your exhaust is over 95dB, and that it is modified.

    The first problem here is most police wouldn’t have a clue what the standard exhaust that came on car is, some times it can be obvious that an exhaust has been modified, other times not so much. For example my car, which used to have a ridiculous exhaust, and i’ve spent a large amount of money putting a standard exhaust back on the car.

    The second problem here is sometimes a police officers opinion of what is 95dB isn’t entirely accurate, some would suggest its cause they know they can get away with beating up on a marginalized section of society, others would say its ridiculous asking a human being for an objective noise measurement without the proper tools.

    Once your car has a green sticker, it costs $150 dollars for a noise test to have it removed, and in most cases they pass, you still have to pay $150 though. Imagine if they did that with breath tests:
    Officer: “I think your drunk” starts writing out ticket
    You:”I am not! you can’t prove that!”
    Officer:”ohh, well, if you like you could pay $150 dollars for a breath test to prove you aren’t”
    I’m sure that would go down great with the public.

    As usual when there’s a crusade against some part of society, there is two things to remember. First it’s a small number of people ruining it for every one else. Secondly, there is plenty of rules in place as it stands, they just need proper enforcement.

    Lastly, you wouldn’t believe how much it fucks me off when a cop pulls me over, claims I was speeding (when I wasn’t), tells me he’s just going to give me a warning but I should probably go home. That kind of behavior destroys any respect what so ever that I have previously had for the cops, and it used to be a lot.

  27. Ianmac 27
    12 November 2008 at 3:20 pm

    Anti smacking: last week a survey showed that
    65% of those who supported S59, understood the Act.
    30% of those who were “anti-smacking” Act did not understand what it was.

  28. Killinginthenameof 28
    12 November 2008 at 3:24 pm

    “- fewer core public servants”

    I wonder if in between the kiwiblog commenters self mastubatory bleatings about the “real world”, whether any of them have ever worked in a government department and actually have a clue what they do?

  29. Chris G 29
    12 November 2008 at 3:26 pm

    Scribe:

    “So National is going to be held responsible for doing things voters incorrectly thought it was going to do, e.g. Section 59?”

    Absolutely. people definately thought he would repeal it. Plus, if your going to run an ambiguous, rhetoric fuelled campaign, you deserve your riches (albeit fools-gold)

    “Key never once suggested the party would do reverse the repeal of S59 (unless it was failing, which he says it’s not), so it’s unfair to hold him accountable for uneducated people.”

    No, but as SP said:
    “Let’s have a look at that list of expectations National has created, based on both what National has promised and what most National voters believe National will do, based on comments in our ‘a change to what?’ posts”

    People THINK he will, and those people Voted for him, Therfore they will hold him accountable regardless of them being “Uneducated people” or not!

    He has no grounds to step back and say ‘thats not fair’. As far as I’m aware he was ambiguous in his stand on s59 (Other than voting for it, of course) during the campaign.

  30. Killinginthenameof 30
    12 November 2008 at 3:26 pm

    “Chris G

    Repeal S59 (Cross) – *Roll on the horrified looks of the old voters/Spare the Rod Spoil the Child voters who voted for Key thinking he’d change that*”

    You should come down south, down in Timaru it’s Spare the rod, use the 2 by 4 instead

  31. bobo 31
    12 November 2008 at 3:28 pm

    Didn’t Labour win by a bigger margin in its 2nd term than its first term ? I guess people judged they did what they said they were going to do on their pledge card in the first 3 years.

  32. Jasper 32
    12 November 2008 at 3:28 pm

    So IanMac, you’re telling me that 65% supported the rights of those responsible for Nia Glassie to claim “reasonable force” under s59 – thereby meaning that body slamming a defenseless 3 year old, throwing her in a 65 degree tumble dryer, and pegging her up to the clothesline and spinning her around – is entirely acceptable?

    BTW – those people sicken me. Kuka should have a taxpayer funded operation to get her tubes tied, and Wiremu Curtis should have a vasectomy to spare any children they might ever have. I hope Kuka gets her just desserts at Arowhata.

    Or did you mean to say that 65% of those who supported the repeal of s59, understood the act?

    I must say, I was most disappointed to see my name on the list of signatures that McKroskie presented – even though I never actually signed the damn thing.

  33. Chris G 33
    12 November 2008 at 3:37 pm

    Jasper,

    ” I was most disappointed to see my name on the list of signatures that McKroskie presented – even though I never actually signed the damn thing.”

    Really? that is shameful, I hope that twit never gets in parliament.

  34. Phil 34
    12 November 2008 at 3:39 pm

    Lastly, you wouldn’t believe how much it fucks me off when a cop pulls me over, claims I was speeding (when I wasn’t), tells me he’s just going to give me a warning

    Forgive me if I don’t believe you when you say you weren’t speeding, that sounds a lot like “Oh, the speedo must be reading wrong”. Anyway, I bet it annoys you a lot less than if s/he gave you the ticket…

  35. Jasper 35
    12 November 2008 at 3:40 pm

    Believe me Chris, I’ve already complained to the electoral commission – but seeing as they’ve done their “10%” check, it’s deemed to be a valid representation of the people requesting a referendum

    Um – but its quite obvious McKroskie (yes, I know its C) just fudged quite a few signatures and names to get his self serving ambiguous question onto the plate.

  36. bobo 36
    12 November 2008 at 3:42 pm

    I would like to see NZ bring in a different classification for child murder which has heavier a sentence , our murder and manslaughter system is too generalized. One thing I like about the US is their 1st 2nd 3rd degree murder system it would stop the police here settling for manslaughter charges too often. The Kahui twins case is most likely the worst miscarriage of Justice in recent times I feel at the very least both parents should have been imprisoned for not offering the necessities of life and rendering aid… Maybe I’m right wing in these views , is just my feelings on it but our justice system could use some changes whether by Labour or National. Would be interesting to know Phil Goffs views on this as I doubt National will make any big changes.

  37. leftrightout 37
    12 November 2008 at 3:44 pm

    – ultra-fast broadband to the home in a few years

    I see telecom again finished bottom of the consumers institute’s ISP satisfaction survey. And John wants to give them a billion dollars of our money?

  38. Chris G 38
    12 November 2008 at 3:51 pm

    leftrightout,

    Nice. That was another big time Johny friendly selling point that was left unchecked by the media. Instead they checked who taped ‘the Tapes’

  39. Lampie 39
    12 November 2008 at 3:54 pm

    “NZ population grows by over 400,000 in past year ” NZ Granny

    Brain drain still here

  40. Killinginthenameof 40
    12 November 2008 at 3:55 pm

    “Phil

    Lastly, you wouldn’t believe how much it fucks me off when a cop pulls me over, claims I was speeding (when I wasn’t), tells me he’s just going to give me a warning

    Forgive me if I don’t believe you when you say you weren’t speeding, that sounds a lot like “Oh, the speedo must be reading wrong’. Anyway, I bet it annoys you a lot less than if s/he gave you the ticket ”

    No, why would I be pissed off if I was speeding? I know the rules and I don’t break them. Never mind the fact that I knew there was a police man behind me so I was looking at the speedo (47kmh), the speed he accused me of doing was 66kmh, that’s a relatively significant ticket, why didn’t he give me it?

    Quite simply, if I had been speeding, I woudln’t be complaining about it.

  41. bobo 41
    12 November 2008 at 3:56 pm

    er typical hyped headline they mean 40,000 , typo in headline I think? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10542666

    maybe i’m wrong?

  42. Ianmac 42
    12 November 2008 at 4:01 pm

    Jasper: Of those who supported the Repeal, 60% understood what the repeal was doing.
    Of those who signed the ambiguous Petition or otherwise were pro-smacking only 30% understood what the Repeal meant.
    Sorry if I was a bit unclear.
    I had a letter published along the lines of “Should NZ pass a law giving adults who hit their kids with sticks, whips, fists etc,the legal defence that they have the right to do so?” Ummm?
    I think that very few would want to pass such a law. Agreed?

  43. Steve Pierson 43
    12 November 2008 at 4:22 pm

    400,000 would be extraordinary, in fact impossible. must be 40,000, which is expected amount.

    Ianmac. These comments from Pansy Wong, do you have a source for them? (feel free to email if you want to keep it private)

  44. Ari 44
    12 November 2008 at 4:28 pm

    So National is going to be held responsible for doing things voters incorrectly thought it was going to do, e.g. Section 59?

    Why not? Labour was held responsible for the state of the economy despite it being entirely due to international markets. 😉

  45. bobo 45
    12 November 2008 at 4:29 pm

    SP – They put decimal point in wrong place the headline has been changed now , good to see numeracy and literacy is high at the Herald…

  46. Janet 46
    12 November 2008 at 4:46 pm

    Funding Plunketline was a definite promise, repeated on national television several times by Key. Let’s see what happens to that promise.

    In 1999 Labour was very careful to under promise – there was a maximum of about 8 definite and achievable policies on their first credit card. It was a very successful tactic.

    Michael Bassett has just been making snide comments about Phil and Annette on National Radio. Remember he was a Brash adviser. What a bitter, angry man.

  47. Killinginthenameof 47
    12 November 2008 at 5:24 pm

    “Ianmac

    Jasper: Of those who supported the Repeal, 60% understood what the repeal was doing.
    Of those who signed the ambiguous Petition or otherwise were pro-smacking only 30% understood what the Repeal meant.
    Sorry if I was a bit unclear.
    I had a letter published along the lines of “Should NZ pass a law giving adults who hit their kids with sticks, whips, fists etc,the legal defence that they have the right to do so?’ Ummm?
    I think that very few would want to pass such a law. Agreed”

    Thankfully the upcoming petition is ambiguous enough to give John Key the wiggle room to do whats right.

    `Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?’

    Yes, no, maybe? well great! thats entirely different from “Should section 59 of the crimes act be reinstated?”

  48. Janet 48
    12 November 2008 at 6:58 pm

    Can I add some more promises that should be measurable?

    Paid dedicated sports coaches in schools (currently there are none, if schools have them they are from discretionary spending from the bulk funded operations grant)

    Huge building programme for schools in Upper Hutt (a promise from a couple of weeks ago in Upper Hutt).

    An enormous increase in the school ops grant (I forget the exact figure but it should be somewhere).

    Less compliance for schools, and fewer staff in the Ministry of Education, while instituting a complex testing regime throughout primary and intermediate schools. (Compliance reduced from where? health and safety?outdoor education? financial auditing? teacher registration? curriculum? strategic planning? suspension and other legal procedures?- will be interesting to see)

    More money for truancy officers.

    Fewer Government comms staff.

    Info about all these should be available in a couple of years through OIA requests – that is, if there are any public servants left to do OIA requests, and assuming the OIA option still exists.

  49. gingercrush 49
    12 November 2008 at 7:03 pm

    Why would National shut down the Official Information Act?

    One thing you can’t deny from National is its willingness to open up government to the public. If anything National has a better record in this regard than Labour. Though your best party for openess is government is most certainly the Green party.

  50. Janet 50
    12 November 2008 at 8:04 pm

    The OIA is about things the right doesn’t like – transparency, freedom of information and public servants (who have to do the research and answer them).

  51. gingercrush 51
    12 November 2008 at 8:15 pm

    Oh please I’ve heard some crap around here but that takes the cake. Do you even know who passed the Official Information Act? It sure wasn’t Labour. It was National. Who has used the Official Information Act to block half that information recently? Labour who for years has decided to block attempts by the media, by the right and even by the left to access Official Information. You can blame National for not wanting to know who are their donors. But for you to make some smear attack accusing National of wanting rid of the OIA then you’re mistaken.

    Like I said earlier. Labour tends to be more reluctant for transparency when in office. Its National that in this area tends to do better. Neither party are as transparent as they could be. In this regard its the greens who really offer policies that achieve transparency in office.

  52. Lampie 52
    12 November 2008 at 8:31 pm

    hey gingernuts, take a chill pill, if National gets rid of the OIA, they could, most unlikely as be blocked by ACT and MP.

  53. gingercrush 53
    12 November 2008 at 8:35 pm

    I am chilled thank you very much. And there is nothing to fear. For the Official Information Act is not going anywhere. Unfortunately really, it could do with some greater measures. Because when Labour took office in 1999 they have frequently been reluctant for people to use and really starting blocking anyone who tried to get information.

  54. Chris G 54
    12 November 2008 at 8:45 pm

    “`Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?'”

    Is that the question that drip asked for that petition?

    What a swindler!!! Fuck I’m almost tempted to create a counter petition with an equally biased question:

    “Are the damages Nia Glassie recieved acceptable?”

    Id also LOVE to know the demographic and characteristics of the people who signed that petition. There are a few prejudice bells ringing in my head but ill let you all cast your imagination. Spare the Rod people spring to mind….

  55. Chris G 55
    12 November 2008 at 8:58 pm

    gingercrush: “Because when Labour took office in 1999 they have frequently been reluctant for people to use and really starting blocking anyone who tried to get information.”

    aye, how you know that? Were they running some ideological deparment thing down there at the beehive… wacky conspiracy alert.

  56. Killinginthenameof 56
    12 November 2008 at 9:07 pm

    “Chris G

    “`Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”

    Is that the question that drip asked for that petition?

    What a swindler!!! Fuck I’m almost tempted to create a counter petition with an equally biased question:

    How about `Should a smack as part of good marital correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?’


    Id also LOVE to know the demographic and characteristics of the people who signed that petition. There are a few prejudice bells ringing in my head but ill let you all cast your imagination. Spare the Rod people spring to mind .”

    The demographic with the highest support for repealing the law is those who actually have children, I may have read that on norightturn, im not sure!

  57. Killinginthenameof 57
    12 November 2008 at 9:10 pm

    gingercrush, do you have any evidence on this? or is everything your saying just because of Matthew Hootons one OIA request to the police, who are notoriously bad for OIA’s anyway, since well before Labour.

  58. Chris G 58
    12 November 2008 at 9:11 pm

    killing,

    Yeah I bet they have kids, but I’d rather more juicy stats showing the twits they are.

    love your possible question by the way

  59. Con 59
    12 November 2008 at 9:24 pm

    You missed out the rehabilitation of incandescent bulbs, dammit!

    Down with “efficient” socialist nanny-state compact fluorescent bulbs! I think if we’re going on Key’s rhetoric, we have a right to expect that energy-wasting light-bulbs will live on, as symbols of our personal freedom to fuck up the environment if we damn well please.

  60. gingercrush 60
    12 November 2008 at 10:27 pm

    Killinginthenameof:

    The Greens.

    “Dr Norman said the OIA was supposed to allow New Zealanders access to information but it was widely abused by departments and ministers who did not want the public to know what was going on behind closed doors.”
    3 November 2008, Fairfax Media

    I could also point you to Stephen Price’s “The Official Information Act 1982: A Window of Government or Curtains Drawn”. http://www.victoria.ac.nz/nzcpl/Files/Occ%20papers/OP_Price.pdf

    Finally there is a book called “Free and Frank: Making the Official Information Act 1982 work better’ by Nicola White which identifies that increasingly information is being blocked or delayed when it is not necessary. (There is plenty more in that book and she does give it a B).

    Now lets be honest here. I don’t think National were the best in this regard in the nineties. Likewise, I am sure that National will be no different than what Labour has been. New Zealand is rather excellent in transparency than other counties. Its one of the strengths this country has. I do believe Labour has increased the blocking or delaying of Official Information requests. But this was simply a response to Janet. In that you can accuse National of being many things. But in regards to transparency in government. National will do worse than Labour has done and could actually do better. Though I actually favour Green’s policy in this regard.

    But to think National is suddenly going to stop being transparent is rather wrong.

  61. Pascal's bookie 61
    12 November 2008 at 11:01 pm

    gc, I agree and you make many fair points. Part of the problem IMHO is that whatever rules you set in place, the politicians will game them. OIA requests can be used as a pretty effective weapon, and oppositions will obviously use them in ways that are less about transparency, than scoring cheap and misleading political points.

  62. TimeWarp 62
    12 November 2008 at 11:48 pm

    leftrightout:

    “I see telecom again finished bottom of the consumers institute’s ISP satisfaction survey. And John wants to give them a billion dollars of our money?”

    It’s no where near that simple as I see it.

    Telecom is investing a lot of capital currently in various projects. The two major ones are it’s new mobile network, and FTTN (fibre to the node) as part of it’s operational seperation undertakings. I would hazard that it could be a difficult prospect for it to take on any more major infrastructure projects – both from a capital perspective and also with respect to project management capability, people and materials resource, etc.

    FTTH would overtake Telecom’s FTTN rollout, but this has already started progressing and investment has been made.

    My understanding of the Key FTTH (fibre to the home) plan is that it is government spending matched to commercial investment – so that up to $1.5b would be put in by the government and an equal amount contributed by a commercial entity or entities. It’s questionable whether Telecom could be involved. Although there may not be any other companies with the capability to run this project.

    As it happens in Australia a similar but much simpler government FTTN initiative appears to be falling over as commercial partners abandon the plan.

    Whether the investment would favour Telecom IMHO is arguable. Any huge splashing out of government money automaticallly creates economic distortions and imbalances the results of which are not always clear. (As does for that matter any huger reduction of government expenditure such as Rogernomics or Ruthenasia).

    Building fibre-to-the-home effectively, in my opinion, nationalises Telecom’s copper network. That is, the copper is made redundant by another network that potentially another entity derives economic value from. That naturally would disadvantage Telecom immensely if it was not the entity controlling the fibre.

    Of course, it’s possible Telecom would have a stake in the fibre and gain benefit from it. In which case your point stands that they a commercial entity could be the beneficiaries of the taxpayer’s largesse.

    Is it possible to strike a balance in between where Telecom is involved in a fibre rollout but at a level with an appropriate investment/return profile? I doubt it is possible to determine that balance, involving as it would other commercial parties, and when the amounts of money involved are so huge any errors are magnified accordingly.

    Commercial parties won’t assume the risk around this, so won’t get involved unless the upside is in their favour. Therefore the risk gets transferred to the taxpayer.

    This in my opinion is the major problem with any PPP approach. Partnerships in general share investment cost and risk, and share returns. However, the government does not need to raise capital, and it’s cost of funds is lower than for commercial entities. So PPP’s purely share risk. And the commercial entity will not carry a huge risk profile, so in an uncertain venture most of the risk is transferred to the taxpayer. Meanwhile, the returns most likely will not be. This supports socialisation of losses and privitisation of gains.

    Labour and Cunliffe have done an admirable job of establishing a more balanced and open telecommunications competitive environment. Key’s money sloshing around will skew the whole economics of this environment and create imbalances.

    It would I think end up being the poorest quality Goverment spending on any significant scale in the last 30 years.

  63. Killinginthenameof 63
    13 November 2008 at 12:41 am

    Sorry gingercrush, I thought you were meaning Labour was explicitly preventing the release of information, that there sounds more like instead Labour failed to act to prevent something that was outside their doing, fair call.

  64. gingercrush 64
    13 November 2008 at 12:52 am

    Well I was kinda saying that as well. But I don’t have the evidence to back that up. And indeed ministers can’t explicitly block things. Just the delay tactics they do. Or they’ll give the information but there may be a few pages missing. IO hope National doesn’t do that. But I’m sure they will anyway.

    I am very in favour of the Greens proposal for more openness. I don’t agree with much of anything from the Greens. But this is one area I do.

  65. Killinginthenameof 65
    13 November 2008 at 12:52 am

    “Chris G
    killing,
    love your possible question by the way”

    How long do you think it would take us to find 300,000 lefties with a decent sense of humor? (ha ha and probably a few token righties who don’t realize its a joke)

    Cause it would sure put child smacking in perspective if they were held at the same time.

    “gingercrush
    I am very in favour of the Greens proposal for more openness. I don’t agree with much of anything from the Greens. But this is one area I do.”

    Yes, it’s an area where I would guess that the greens as act agree. With both of them being principal based parties, I’d really like to see them forgetting their differences on numerous other policies and lobbying either main party to support such a change.

    More cooperation between the Greens and Act is something I would like to see these days.

  66. Spectator 66
    13 November 2008 at 9:08 pm

    “I must say, I was most disappointed to see my name on the list of signatures that McKroskie presented – even though I never actually signed the damn thing.”

    I am entirely unsurprised that the bashers resorted to that sort of tactic. Locally, when the petition was sent back for additional signatures, the bashers were telling people who had already signed that it had been rejected and they had to sign again.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.