Government information policy in New Zealand: Businesslike but evolving?

Government Information Quarterly

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 215-228

  Hernon, Peter ^a  

^a SIMMONS COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030496772     PISSN: 0740624X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0740-624X(96)90052-0     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (29)

1. 1. During the development of public policy, the departments that need to be consulted are brought into the process. The Cabinet Office rigorously adheres to the consulting process. Thus, although all departments do not have access to all information, the system tends to ensure (but does not guarantee) that they receive information deemed relevant to them. Occasionally, departments might be deprived of information from other departments.
2. 2. See U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Experiences Abroad Suggest Insights for Federal Management Reforms, GAO/GGD-95-120 (Washington, D.C., 1995). This excellent report compares management structures within Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. In New Zealand, departments develop strategic plans that describe their "mission; desired outcomes; significant issues affecting performance; the outputs to be produced at an agreed cost, quantity, and quality; management goals; and financial goals" (p. 22).
3. 3. Customarily, there are purchase agreements between Ministers and the chief executives of departments. These agreements describe outputs, their cost, performance measures, and quality standards. In effect, such an agreement comprises the work responsibilities of the department for the upcoming year, but it can be the subject of renegotiation with a Minister. The agreement might appear as part of the annual corporate plan of a department. The annual report will convey the extent to which the agreement was met.
4. 4. With the State Sector Act reforms, public servants are no longer expected to do more than their Minister specifically requires of them through the performance agreements. The intent is to ensure that the public sector is accountable to Ministers and to dissuade public servants from inventing tasks to keep themselves busy or to implement their own agendas.
5. 5. Trading enterprises are sold or set up separately from government. However, the government maintains an ownership role but does not purchase services. These organizations competed with the private sector or could compete if they were not a monology. Examples of trading enterprises include Air New Zealand -and the New Zealand Post.
6. 6. New Zealand Official Yearbook 94 (Wellington, NZ: Statistics New Zealand, 1994), pp. 27-28.
7. 7. From the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, the number of public servants was reduced by 41.2%.
8. 8. The Decision Maker Guidebook to Parliament & the Community: Reaction to Change (Wellington, NZ: Asia Pacific Economic News Ltd., 1994), p. 4.
9. 9. Anna Chalmers, "Government Information: Some Information Policy Issues for Public Access, with Particular Reference to the New Zealand Situation," Paper delivered at the Colloquium on Government and Parliamentary Information, School of Information, Library and Information Studies University of New South Wales, July 21-22, 1994, p. 1.
10. 10. One of the few exceptions is Ian Eagles, Michael Taggart, and Grant Liddell, Freedom of Information in New Zealand (Auckland, NZ: Oxford University Press, 1992).
11. 11. "In general, recent governments have restricted information flows so that only those likely to support their policies have had easy access to it.... [T]his has largely been big business and the legal fraternity. Despite the wonderful improvements possible with the new information technology I believe we in the ... sector have less general access to relevant and reliable information about the performance of our largely publicly funded health system than we did a few years ago. This is reflected in the relative dearth of informed and open debate about issues of public health importance. What we seem to have is what I used to call trench warfare, but is probably more like guerilla warfare. On the one side is the government forces charged with defending a set position, on the other disorderly and ill informed guerilla bands of malcontents unable to engage the government in anything other than minor skirmishing. Academic researchers, certainly in the health sector, are finding it almost impossible to get access to information which previously would have been reasonably accessible. Quite apart from concerns about commercial sensitivity those within the system now seem to be more self interested, self-serving, less public spirited and less cooperative and charitable in the way in which they deal with others than they used to be. I am not saying that the old collegiate ways of doing things within the sector were without problems-that is certainly not true. But, I do think that those who seek to commodity, cost, trade and economically rationalise health care have gone too far. The altruism, sense of professional obligation, the feeling of community ownership and community obligation to be interested in and to support publicly funded health care has been eroded. The social cohesion that held the various health sector tribes together does not seem to be there any more. The reasons for this are complex but I believe that the restricted flow of information has a lot to do with it" (letter from a former civil servant, October 4, 1995).
12. 12. See Peter Hernon, "Public Access to Government Information in a Democracy: Information Policy in New Zealand (With Selected Comparison to the United States)," New Zealand Libraries, 48 (September 1995), pp. 38-45.
13. 13. The SSC now appoints the chief executives, offers some advice on structural issues crossing departmental boundaries, and has some residual human resources roles in the education sector. It see a role for itself in issues of collective interest such as management development across departmental boundaries.
14. 14. Adele Carpinter, Managing Data, Knowledge and Know-How: Information Policy Issues for the 1990s (Wellington, NZ: National Library of New Zealand, 1991), pp. 64, 65.
15. 15. Ibid., p. 64.
16. 16. Interdepartmental Committee on Information Technology, Discussion Paper on Information Sharing (Wellington, NZ: State Services Commission, 1995), p. 4. [Hereafter cited as Discussion Paper].
17. 17. For an analysis of the Discussion Paper, see Hernon, "Public Access to Government Information in a Democracy."
18. 18. Discussion Paper, p. 7.
19. 19. Ibid., p. 19.
20. 20. Ibid., pp. 7, 21.
21. 21. Ibid., p. 9.
22. 22. Ibid., p. 11.
23. 23. Ibid.
24. 24. "As a policy ministry, Commerce is not a central agency and, thus, it has no coordinating role. The WWW site that it operates on a trial basis at the request of the Minister is virtually free to use by government departments. The Ministry of Commerce does not want to control the home page as that would be an operational, not policy, function. The two obvious operational agencies, Internal Affairs and the National Library, see their role as developing their own proprietary networks rather than using the WWW. As a result, Commerce believes it must fill the vacuum, to a small extent (e-mail message from a civil servant, October 1, 1995).
25. 25. For instance, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-130, "The Management of Federal Information Resources," contains policy principles that New Zealand might examine.
26. 26. New Zealand Law Librarians' Working Group, Access to Parliamentary and State Information (Auckland, NZ, 1994), section 5.1.
27. 27. Ibid., section 5-2, p. 2.
28. 28. What types of publications do they need and want? What types of publications should the DLS provide free? For an excellent overview of the types of publications produced by the government, see New Zealand Law Librarians' Working Group, Access to Parliamentary and State Information, and New Zealand Law Librarians' Working Group, Access to Parliamentary and State Information: Supplement (Auckland, NZ, 1995).
29. 29. For an interesting perspective, see Robert Gellman, "Selling Government Data: A Failure of Historic Proportions," Government Computer News, 14 (June 19, 1995).