Certainly the Croiwn should share why it discontinued the prosecution against the Te Papa damage defendant. If the continuation of the proceedings was not in the poublic interest that alond calls for an explanation
I agree. You might like to check out (or have already checked out!) the comments about the application of the then-proposed Act in the supplementary Danks report of 1981. It’s silent on Crown solicitors as far as I can see but the rationale there might help give your arguments even more grip. The original Scheduled list seems to have 3 companies and today’s Sch 2 has 9 but excludes many SOEs obviously. So one wonders if it was simply the product of its time rather than “principled” - when the certainties about public functions being performed by private bodies were different. Report available on the Ombudsman’s website.
PS another agency is FishServe Limited, who holds the key to most fisheries enforcement information. Jones’s Fisheries Bill is specifically taking that area in the opposite direction to that which you propose.
I think you're probably right about this being a product of its time. They were taking agencies covered by the Ombudsman Act and adding other to it. They just didn't think about private law firms!
Graeme
Well said. I have signed the petition and restacked yuour post.
I wrote a piece about the OIA which was published in the Herald - https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/official-information-act-how-a-transparency-law-was-hollowed-out-david-harvey/premium/X7FGOOBDGNHLDDECH43RKL6E5M/ and when the article appeared on my Substack it went under the byl;ine The Official Obfuscation Act.
Certainly the Croiwn should share why it discontinued the prosecution against the Te Papa damage defendant. If the continuation of the proceedings was not in the poublic interest that alond calls for an explanation
I agree. You might like to check out (or have already checked out!) the comments about the application of the then-proposed Act in the supplementary Danks report of 1981. It’s silent on Crown solicitors as far as I can see but the rationale there might help give your arguments even more grip. The original Scheduled list seems to have 3 companies and today’s Sch 2 has 9 but excludes many SOEs obviously. So one wonders if it was simply the product of its time rather than “principled” - when the certainties about public functions being performed by private bodies were different. Report available on the Ombudsman’s website.
PS another agency is FishServe Limited, who holds the key to most fisheries enforcement information. Jones’s Fisheries Bill is specifically taking that area in the opposite direction to that which you propose.
I think you're probably right about this being a product of its time. They were taking agencies covered by the Ombudsman Act and adding other to it. They just didn't think about private law firms!
Thanks for bringing this to public attention. I have just signed and will restock the article.
I also have signed petition and restacked.