Kia ora and welcome to !newzealand, a place to share and discuss anything about Aotearoa in general
Rules:
FAQ ~ NZ Community List ~ Join Matrix chatroom
Banner image by Bernard Spragg
Got an idea for next month's banner?
She sounds like a massive pain in the ass, and the story is written to be sympathetic to her. I don't blame the employees for getting annoyed, but putting something like this in writing is just dumb.
What's so important about a PhD that justifies this level of access, anyway? How does it benefit NZ?
The fact she put in an OIA request for all correspondence mentioning her by name kinda shows that she's probably doing a lot of unnecessary requests, but it also shows that her suspicions were kinda correct.
Maybe she had to put in a lot of extra requests due to people filling the requests not supplying all the relevant info the first time, or denying her requests more frequently once people started to recognise her name... 🤔
That said, reaction of info can be extremely tedious(speaking from what I've heard from friends who have to redact videos of software testing), and will drive almost anyone a bit up the wall... 😅
How do you know what is or isn't of benefit to NZ unless it is disclosed? If that takes effort, then thats one of the many costs of having a (always tenuous) democracy.
That's why I'm asking.
My question is, is a PhD thesis as important as this person thinks it is?
Iduno if this is related to her phd research or not, but might be: https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/parenting/300101188/barbara-sumner-i-have-yet-to-meet-a-woman-who-gladly-gave-away-her-baby
Quite interesting to see what her field is, at least.
Yes.
Why?
Just to annoy you, specifically.
This is why I don't like these types of platforms. If you are bitching about someone, keep it offline.
Sumner said she was shocked to read how staff had been speaking about her, and found the reaction to her request "deeply disturbing".
This seems like she is playing it up for the media, "deeply disturbing", are you really so thin skinned that someone calling you a schoolyard name is "deeply disturbing". I'm sorry but people have real feelings and have good/bad days. Was the language unprofessional, totally. Was language required or helpful, absolutely not.
Any thoughts on this? I tend to think anyone that asks for all correspondence relating to them is kinda being a dick. And it probably depends on the person but I don't find the language used here to be particularly strong, as in I interpret this as meaning she's being annoying, but I would acknowledge not everyone would see it that way.
Plus it tends to be SovCits or similar that request everything held about themselves, and it's a bitch to collate.
However, I think the staff have it wrong. The information is about herself, so it's a Privacy Act request and not an Official Information Act request. Goverment agencies can't charge for Privacy Act Requests (Unless something changed in the new Act, it's been over a decade since I was near this stuff).
Part of their job is to respond to OIA requests.
That those requests might take effort is irrelevant, or at least considered by higher-ups before directing staff to assemble the OIA material.
The PhD had among the strongest reasons for her principal requests: research. That she felt that something was slightly off is relevant: if her requests have been responded to without proper care then her research is flawed.
She likey was looking for evidence that some of her requests were not properly responded to... instead she found a personal attack.
This is possibly a mismanagement problem.
"You must deliver this project in this timeframe, no matter what additional requests come through"
So workers see these requests as an impediment to their progress.
This doesn't excuse the staffers behavior, but I imagine they were under some sort of pressure.
Part of their job is to respond to OIA requests.
On thinking about this, this is relevant for another reason: they know that the chat information will be provided, so they have no excuse for their comments regardless of context.
She likey was looking for evidence that some of her requests were not properly responded to… instead she found a personal attack.
I don't think I quite got this on my first reading. But on scanning through the article again, I think you're right. My bias is that people ask for all information about themselves as a sort of punishment for staff not doing what they want. I have this bias because it happens all the time. But this case is different, it's about a feeling that the information provided may not be correct, which is important when it's for research.
She did the request for her own info because she suspected staff were dragging their heels with her other requests, and the request for her own info proved her suspicions were well-founded.
Asking for information on how a section of government operates should be commended, not discouraged. The government works for the people and their operations should be transparent. Doubly so when they act like they have something to hide.
But, Ive been a staff member who had a bad day and found a customer's legitimate request frustrating - "this is the last thing I needed" - so I have some level of sympathy for the staffers too.
Yeah, I fully support government transparency and see the need for it. I guess I've only seen this from one side, which is the side where you're being ask for this info but you're unable to correct the media because you can't give out personal information, so the media gets a one sided story.
I guess my main feeling was that the headline "Ministry of Justice workers call researcher a 'bitch' in online conversation" sounds really bad, but the sentence it's used it to me feels a lot softer.
On the other hand, there's really no excuse for a staff member whose job it is to respond to OIA and Privacy Act requests to not recognise that these chat conversations would be part of what is returned to her.