I’ll be honest in that I’m surprised how many folks are fooled by his rhetoric. He’s calling for lower house prices because the fall is already happening, and it’s inevitable, despite the Govt’s fervent intentions. I called it last year - it’s simple economics, and despite their best wishes, they don’t control the RBNZ.
I’ll give him this though - his spinnery is outstanding, and he’s just a softer, nicer, polite and prettier mask version of Jones. Comes across as a stellar reasonable guy and I’d wager he’s very chipper and down to earth in person.
He’s the guy who is behind most of Shane’s policies and stands with him. He’s the guy who’s behind Smoke Free Generation repeal and has tobacco in his pocket.
So I guess I’m saying I see why so many people see him as better, but I see Jones as the irritant, and allows people like Bishop to act as the ”good cop” foil - but in reality he ain’t no better.
Understand this is just my take.
Edit: corrected grammar
So what happens now though? The Govt has acted unreasonably and unlawfully but I’m guessing the Ombudsman doesn’t have the power to stop the law progressing nor to remove Bishop from office?
I’d bet not. Bishop was a tobacco lobbyist before joining National as an MP. His father is the first chair of Atlas backed Taxpayers Union that is funded from tobacco groups.
His whole gilded tongue, cheerful demeanour and sly deviousness knows what he can do and what he can’t. It will just be a media article like this, which most people will ignore (because could we find a more boring name than “Fast-Track bill?”)
And he will be on his merry way with plenty of excuses and the right messages.
Imo, he’s gross as, and I can’t believe Wellington voted for this tosser.
Agreed, but it was just over half of Hutt South.
Chris won by 1,332 votes out of 43,576 votes cast in total. So he won by a 3.3% margin. Relatively, a small majority. Please don't blame the rest of us in Hutt South. We tried.
> So what happens now though?
Nothing
> Penny Nelson, Department of Conservation Director General, said: "We accept the findings and are reviewing our process."
That part is gross, especially when you see the timeline state that DOC keeps pressing on this issue, stating that it should be done more urgently and quickly. And that DOC felt uncomfortable with the Minister’s directive etc.
>Ombudsman doesn’t have the power to stop the law progressing nor to remove Bishop from office?
They'll write him a letter telling him he's a very naughty boy.
The RNZ timeline seems to have a few dates out of order. Here is the timeline with that corrected:
* **March 08**: Forest & Bird submit OIA to the Department of Conservation asking for the advice it had provided to Ministers regarding the Fast-track Approvals Bill
* **March 14**: The Department of Conservation forwarded a list of documents likely to be included in the OIA to the Minister of Conservation's Office and noted that agencies were working to pull together a proactive release package. The Minister’s Office said it had seen an email stating the entire release package was going to be managed through Minister Bishop’s Office and would be released in roughly five weeks.
* **March 14 (continued)**: The Department expressed concern five weeks would mean the release *‘couldn’t inform submissions’* and said *‘we should be aiming for faster’*. The Minister’s Office concurred and noted that it was awaiting an update from Minister Bishop’s Office about *‘when they’re aiming for but I just meant it will likely be less than 5 weeks’*.
* **March 19**: The Department of Conservation provides material for release to the Minister of Conservation. The Department was directed to participate in the broader Government proactive release. At this point, it was expected to occur approximately a week prior to select committee submissions closing. The Department noted as submissions to the Bill had opened, there was some urgency to provide key information.
* **March 20**: The Minister of Conservation agreed to ‘the proactive release of all the attached briefings and memos as part of a wider package to be released by the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform’ subject to the proposed redactions. The Minister’s Office forwarded the Department’s papers to Minister Bishop’s office.
* **March 27**: The Ministry for the Environment update agencies involved in the release. It says not all agencies had provided material for the proactive release and ‘at this stage’ it was aiming to get a full package . It notes: The timing after that depends on the Minister’s Office and will likely be a week at least.
* **April 03**: Department of Conservation staff note the timing of the proactive release did not sit well with its responsibilities under the OIA.
* **April 08**: Department of Conservation refuse Forest & Bird's request on the basis the information is going to be made publicly available soon and will be released by the Office of Chris Bishop, Minster responsible for RMA Reform.
* **April 11**: The Department of Conservation note following a conversation with the Minister of Conservation's office it was not hopeful the release would occur before submissions closed but that the Ministers office *'would prefer we didn’t release the documents separately to the proactive release process’*
* **April 19**: Submissions to the Fast-track Approvals Bill close
* **April 24**: The Department of Conservation emails Forest & Bird apologising for the delay.
* **May 27**: Information published online
* **June 11**: The Office of the Ombudsman finds the refusal to release the information was unlawfully and unreasonable.
What made him feel arrogant I wonder?
Will [admit](https://www.reddit.com/r/nzpolitics/comments/1az6p4p/who_is_this_from_2012_when_nz_created_its_vision/) that he has the gift of the garb and can sell black as white. Admittedly, that is a skill.
Not to mention, since DIA have treated archives like a red-headed stepchild OIA requests are going to take far longer, and may require you to be in person to even receive some documents.
It begs the question, does this Government not understand the OIA process, the difference between an official request and a release of information to the general public?
Or are they willfully keeping people in the dark?
Not a good look Luxon.
There’s other OIA requests that are being “sanitised” they say the information “doesn’t exist” when we know that’s a lie.
Official Information act doesn’t work anymore.
> Or are they willfully keeping people in the dark?
What we think doesn't really concern them. A few favours to the right people over the next few years and our happy bunch of politicians will all find themselves parachuted into a lifetime of nicely paid directorships and getting significantly overpaid for a make-work job in a corporation. Right, Chris?.
Yep jobs for life. Never need to worry about being homeless or having enough money for food. These scumbags don’t care because it will never affect them.
They will be looked after because they have the ability to lie to the public and “get things done” for whoever will pay them. While in our parliament taking a salary.
They’re not scared of anything except bad press and big enough numbers of negative sentiment. Unfortunately, we don’t have a heck of a lot of tools other than - keep spreading awareness, and facts to counter the lies and spinnery. Group with like minded people. Take opportunities to protest and make your voice heard when appropriate. Conserve energy and stay happy - we’re in a marathon for now.
If I were a “legal” man, I would know if true accountability is possible. But if the court of public opinion is so ignored, in other societies like ours, a minister could be impeached for law-breaking.
When it comes to the law around OIAs, the Ombudsman is toothless. I mean, what is that finding “unlawful and unreasonable” actually going to do after the fact ie. a slap on the wrist? Is it going to materially change this legislation? These Ministers pull this crap all the time ie delay and obfuscate to get their bills passed or have things fly under the radar. And that’s the lefties as well. It’s corruption by another name.
No, because they push it to the line, but don’t cross the line. They do release if they have to, but often late - too late to be helpful for whoever is wanting that info, as is the case here. It’s tightly handled in Ministries, whose CE are at the bidding of the Minister. If the Minister wants it, they get it. Dodgy AF in my mind.
Why do you have other head ministers in parliament for if there request is denied or put aside till further notice. If you arnt going to respect the minister with more information then the public then you aren't going to respect the public on submission. Minister are paid to do there jobs but fast tracking will end up other ministers making calls and minister passing around blame instead of working for the public on there portfolio.
The cash grab bill
Bishop is a slime ball of the highest order.
You have to be to lobby for Phillip Morris.
For those of you who want a TL;DR, Phillip Morris is owned by Kraft and is one of the worlds leading cigarette manufacturers
Thank you for this one, I didn't know it. Chur.
He's not great, but there's a chasm between him and Shane Jones. At least he seems to actually want to improve the housing situation.
I’ll be honest in that I’m surprised how many folks are fooled by his rhetoric. He’s calling for lower house prices because the fall is already happening, and it’s inevitable, despite the Govt’s fervent intentions. I called it last year - it’s simple economics, and despite their best wishes, they don’t control the RBNZ. I’ll give him this though - his spinnery is outstanding, and he’s just a softer, nicer, polite and prettier mask version of Jones. Comes across as a stellar reasonable guy and I’d wager he’s very chipper and down to earth in person. He’s the guy who is behind most of Shane’s policies and stands with him. He’s the guy who’s behind Smoke Free Generation repeal and has tobacco in his pocket. So I guess I’m saying I see why so many people see him as better, but I see Jones as the irritant, and allows people like Bishop to act as the ”good cop” foil - but in reality he ain’t no better. Understand this is just my take. Edit: corrected grammar
Conjecture or blind faith?
So what happens now though? The Govt has acted unreasonably and unlawfully but I’m guessing the Ombudsman doesn’t have the power to stop the law progressing nor to remove Bishop from office?
I’d bet not. Bishop was a tobacco lobbyist before joining National as an MP. His father is the first chair of Atlas backed Taxpayers Union that is funded from tobacco groups. His whole gilded tongue, cheerful demeanour and sly deviousness knows what he can do and what he can’t. It will just be a media article like this, which most people will ignore (because could we find a more boring name than “Fast-Track bill?”) And he will be on his merry way with plenty of excuses and the right messages. Imo, he’s gross as, and I can’t believe Wellington voted for this tosser.
Agreed, but it was just over half of Hutt South. Chris won by 1,332 votes out of 43,576 votes cast in total. So he won by a 3.3% margin. Relatively, a small majority. Please don't blame the rest of us in Hutt South. We tried.
> So what happens now though? Nothing > Penny Nelson, Department of Conservation Director General, said: "We accept the findings and are reviewing our process."
I found it interesting that the formal finding sits on DOC, considering DOC were under direction.
So essentially DOC takes the fall for Bishop's cowardice, slimeness, fraudulent
That part is gross, especially when you see the timeline state that DOC keeps pressing on this issue, stating that it should be done more urgently and quickly. And that DOC felt uncomfortable with the Minister’s directive etc.
DOC are meant to be bound by the law and not by the minister in operational matters
That's how it works. Public servants can't say anything but take the crap when it all goes wrong.
>Ombudsman doesn’t have the power to stop the law progressing nor to remove Bishop from office? They'll write him a letter telling him he's a very naughty boy.
🙈
The RNZ timeline seems to have a few dates out of order. Here is the timeline with that corrected: * **March 08**: Forest & Bird submit OIA to the Department of Conservation asking for the advice it had provided to Ministers regarding the Fast-track Approvals Bill * **March 14**: The Department of Conservation forwarded a list of documents likely to be included in the OIA to the Minister of Conservation's Office and noted that agencies were working to pull together a proactive release package. The Minister’s Office said it had seen an email stating the entire release package was going to be managed through Minister Bishop’s Office and would be released in roughly five weeks. * **March 14 (continued)**: The Department expressed concern five weeks would mean the release *‘couldn’t inform submissions’* and said *‘we should be aiming for faster’*. The Minister’s Office concurred and noted that it was awaiting an update from Minister Bishop’s Office about *‘when they’re aiming for but I just meant it will likely be less than 5 weeks’*. * **March 19**: The Department of Conservation provides material for release to the Minister of Conservation. The Department was directed to participate in the broader Government proactive release. At this point, it was expected to occur approximately a week prior to select committee submissions closing. The Department noted as submissions to the Bill had opened, there was some urgency to provide key information. * **March 20**: The Minister of Conservation agreed to ‘the proactive release of all the attached briefings and memos as part of a wider package to be released by the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform’ subject to the proposed redactions. The Minister’s Office forwarded the Department’s papers to Minister Bishop’s office. * **March 27**: The Ministry for the Environment update agencies involved in the release. It says not all agencies had provided material for the proactive release and ‘at this stage’ it was aiming to get a full package . It notes: The timing after that depends on the Minister’s Office and will likely be a week at least. * **April 03**: Department of Conservation staff note the timing of the proactive release did not sit well with its responsibilities under the OIA. * **April 08**: Department of Conservation refuse Forest & Bird's request on the basis the information is going to be made publicly available soon and will be released by the Office of Chris Bishop, Minster responsible for RMA Reform. * **April 11**: The Department of Conservation note following a conversation with the Minister of Conservation's office it was not hopeful the release would occur before submissions closed but that the Ministers office *'would prefer we didn’t release the documents separately to the proactive release process’* * **April 19**: Submissions to the Fast-track Approvals Bill close * **April 24**: The Department of Conservation emails Forest & Bird apologising for the delay. * **May 27**: Information published online * **June 11**: The Office of the Ombudsman finds the refusal to release the information was unlawfully and unreasonable.
Thank you bodza.
Bishop was a smarmy, arrogant, dickhead even back in high school. Nothing has changed.
What made him feel arrogant I wonder? Will [admit](https://www.reddit.com/r/nzpolitics/comments/1az6p4p/who_is_this_from_2012_when_nz_created_its_vision/) that he has the gift of the garb and can sell black as white. Admittedly, that is a skill.
Not to mention, since DIA have treated archives like a red-headed stepchild OIA requests are going to take far longer, and may require you to be in person to even receive some documents.
Good times indeed
It begs the question, does this Government not understand the OIA process, the difference between an official request and a release of information to the general public? Or are they willfully keeping people in the dark? Not a good look Luxon.
There’s other OIA requests that are being “sanitised” they say the information “doesn’t exist” when we know that’s a lie. Official Information act doesn’t work anymore.
It would work if they were held to account on it.
No- one is held to account. Wastes time and money and the public is having the piss taken
What requests are you referring to?
Hard to refer to something that “doesn’t exist “
> Or are they willfully keeping people in the dark? What we think doesn't really concern them. A few favours to the right people over the next few years and our happy bunch of politicians will all find themselves parachuted into a lifetime of nicely paid directorships and getting significantly overpaid for a make-work job in a corporation. Right, Chris?.
Yep jobs for life. Never need to worry about being homeless or having enough money for food. These scumbags don’t care because it will never affect them. They will be looked after because they have the ability to lie to the public and “get things done” for whoever will pay them. While in our parliament taking a salary.
Exactly, all a bunch of bastards.
So how can we hold these fuckers accountable?
They’re not scared of anything except bad press and big enough numbers of negative sentiment. Unfortunately, we don’t have a heck of a lot of tools other than - keep spreading awareness, and facts to counter the lies and spinnery. Group with like minded people. Take opportunities to protest and make your voice heard when appropriate. Conserve energy and stay happy - we’re in a marathon for now.
If I were a “legal” man, I would know if true accountability is possible. But if the court of public opinion is so ignored, in other societies like ours, a minister could be impeached for law-breaking.
When it comes to the law around OIAs, the Ombudsman is toothless. I mean, what is that finding “unlawful and unreasonable” actually going to do after the fact ie. a slap on the wrist? Is it going to materially change this legislation? These Ministers pull this crap all the time ie delay and obfuscate to get their bills passed or have things fly under the radar. And that’s the lefties as well. It’s corruption by another name.
If the government acted unlawfully while getting legislation through parliament, isn't that grounds for a judicial review of that legislation?
No, because they push it to the line, but don’t cross the line. They do release if they have to, but often late - too late to be helpful for whoever is wanting that info, as is the case here. It’s tightly handled in Ministries, whose CE are at the bidding of the Minister. If the Minister wants it, they get it. Dodgy AF in my mind.
Why do you have other head ministers in parliament for if there request is denied or put aside till further notice. If you arnt going to respect the minister with more information then the public then you aren't going to respect the public on submission. Minister are paid to do there jobs but fast tracking will end up other ministers making calls and minister passing around blame instead of working for the public on there portfolio.