Conniving, conniptions, and compromising the OIA

There's been a bit of coverage of the OIA of late. Courtesy of former Cabinet Minister (and, assumedly, soon to be ex-MP) Stuart Nash.

Enough has been written about his actions and his complete incompetence when it comes to even a basic understanding of the rules a Minister is supposed to follow. I don't need to add too much to that. Other than to say one of his donors comments summed him up nicely.

"Discretion and Stuart Nash aren't words that are usually used in the same sentence."

Nash has always been a bit of a big noter and gossiper, and frequently to people he really shouldn't have been talking to - ie reporters. Sooner or later his indiscretions were going to hang him. In fact, he's probably lucky he lasted as long as he did.

But back to the point - political interference in the OIA.

People in the Wellington beltway will be aware of the problem. Over time the 'no surprises' policy, where government departments are obliged to keep Ministers informed of events that may create public controversy, has morphed into political manipulation of information that is in the public interest.

It is standard procedure for most, if not all, government departments to copy their Ministers in on media responses and OIA requests. A lot of this material is operational and shouldn't be even going to a Minister's office in the first place. But the risk-averse nature of the public service (don't embarrass the minister/don't embarrass the chief executive) means most information is shared by default. It's at this sharing point that the problems arise. Ministers' offices are , by their very nature, a very political environment. A lot of the staff in them are politically aligned with the Minister's party. An entire career path has emerged in the last 30 years where party staffers can carve out a career path to become an MP and Minister by working for MPs and Ministers. It means they see all the information coming into their Minister's office through a political lens and treat it accordingly. Some offices are better than others. But some, generally offices with inexperienced Ministers and younger staffers, interfere with the release of information quite egregiously.

Anything vaguely controversial or that could be construed as harming the reputation of the Minister or the Government of the day is seized on and vigorously and enthusiastically redacted, and sections of the Act are misused to stop the release of information. The interference even extends to press secreatries suggesting themes or angles for operational media releases for which they should have no involvement with.

This interference breeds other problems in the public service too. Staff are well aware of how Ministers and their offices may react and tailor thir work to suit. Anything that could be seen as controversial is done via face to face meetings or phone calls. Written correspondence is kept sanitised, and actual records of how decisions have been made don't always tell the whole truth or show the entirety of the process.

This is not to say government departments are working hand in glove with Ministers to conceal and deceive. Most are not. In fact, most work very hard to release information in a timely way. However, the environment is such that it works against this outcome. If a department does not have a strong and inexperienced Ministerials/Official Correspondence team, and has a Minister prone to 'managing the message', then problems will (and do) occur.

The overt manipulation of the MP vs Minister scenario also deserves a mention. It has been wilfully abused by successive governments for many years. The MP hat is conveniently worn where there is information to hide. For Nash, it was correspondence with his donors. For Key and Collins, it was their correspondence with blogger Cameron Slater. The Office of the Ombudsmen, to their everlasting shame, have failed to curtail this deliberate finagling of the Act. For the Nash case, it beggars belief that the staffers in the Prime Minister's Office did not immediately see the breach of the Cabinet Manual. It is exactly the risk they are supposed to be looking for when checking such releases. For it not to have registered suggests either incompetence or political manipulation.

Incompetent people don't normally get to work in the Prime Minister's Office.