-
@Kirwan terrible article. Most of our history has seen public servants (aka faceless bureaucrats) making life and death decisions, whether health, immigration, civil defence, war, police, food, welfare etc. To make this more open to scrutiny, judicial review of decisions and the OIA were introduced. To protect privacy and people's information, the Privacy Act was introduced.
The flip side of discretion in these sorts of cases is inconsistency, and my experience of that was that the inconsistency caused by compassionate discretion led to what could be hundreds of pages of correspondence on the subject for other similar requests. That didn't mean no discretion, but it was frustrating and discouraging to explain that.
That aside, I doubt coming home to die was thought of when the rules were designed, but that's hardly the public servant's fault, or anyone's really - why would we even think to prioritise coming home to die? There's a limit to the number of places, and most of them are just left open to the market. Should we reduce the open number and increase the number of emergency places? If we do that, who is going to tell the journalists writing articles on the empty MIQ hotels and the humanitarian disaster to fuck off?
Ian Lees-Galloway was excoriated for his decision on Sroubek, and one of the outcomes of the review into that was that ministerial decision-making should be avoided in individual cases.
During Select Committee hearings and parliamentary debate on the new Public Service Act, the virtues of an independent public service were extolled.
Seems unfortunate that we can't decide what we want.
-
One of my relatives has aggressive terminal cancer, faceless beauracrats managed to get one of her UK citizen daughters a free, quick MIQ place based on minimal documentation of a 25 years ago permanent residency when daughter was gap-yearing in NZ in the 1990s.
So, well done to faceless beauracrat's compassion in that case.
-
@Rapido said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
One of my relatives has aggressive terminal cancer, faceless beauracrats managed to get one of her UK citizen daughters a free, quick MIQ place based on minimal documentation of a 25 years ago permanent residency when daughter was gap-yearing in NZ in the 1990s.
So, well done to faceless beauracrat's compassion in that case.
And that’s the point right? What sort of person doesn’t do that?
At the very least you kick it upstairs and say we need to do something here, despite the rules
-
@taniwharugby slackers
-
Yeah, it wasn't at you but I've heard it from a few ppl (including family members) and it's pretty depressing.
With luck, I'll find something in Oz soon and hope that we can move there (although I'm not sure if I could enter to take up the position at the moment)
-
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Ian Lees-Galloway was excoriated for his decision on Sroubek, and one of the outcomes of the review into that was that ministerial decision-making should be avoided in individual cases.
Can you please explain this?
I'm reading this as "ministers should avoid the rap for the responsibility they signed up for" and should therefore be able to blame it on the bureaucrats.
This seems like a disturbingly political decision.
Plausible deniability and all that.
-
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Iain Lees-Galloway
Secondly, please ensure the inclusion of the second "i".
Makes a world of difference ... things like emails ... "I spelt the fucking name out for you idiot ..."
"Yes, that's right I.A.I.N."
"Yes, it's fucking Scottish"
"Milne?"
"Hewitson?""Yes, pretty much any Scotsman named Iain (except that piston wristed gibbon McGeechan ...)..."
-
@booboo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Ian Lees-Galloway was excoriated for his decision on Sroubek, and one of the outcomes of the review into that was that ministerial decision-making should be avoided in individual cases.
Can you please explain this?
I'm reading this as "ministers should avoid the rap for the responsibility they signed up for" and should therefore be able to blame it on the bureaucrats.
This seems like a disturbingly political decision.
Plausible deniability and all that.
Either there's an independent public service making statutory decisions without ministerial input, or there isn't. The police is an obvious area where independence is critically important, as are other regulatory matters. The media is quite variable on how it seems to approach the issue, basically coming down on the side of the argument that supports the narrative of the current article.
However, if Parliament does provide for operational decisions by ministers such as in the Immigration Act, then the minister gets to wear it if it goes awry. The point of the noted review was that the minister (Iain!) should delegate more decision-making than he did. However, his predecessor, Michael Woodhouse, had a run in with the media over too much delegation because a public servant suspended a resident sex offender's deportation (for reasons that would have seen the deportation notice suspended by the immigration protection tribunal on appeal anyway). I wasn't trying to give the minister plausible deniability, just observing that the media treatment was inconsistent with previous reporting on the general issue of ministerial decision-making and delegation.
-
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
The media is quite variable on how it seems to approach the issue, basically coming down on the side of the argument that supports the narrative of the current article.
100% this. Great call, preach it. Media want 'gotcha' moments to get clicks, rather than actually considering whether they critiqued the exact opposite position previously
-
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@booboo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
Ian Lees-Galloway was excoriated for his decision on Sroubek, and one of the outcomes of the review into that was that ministerial decision-making should be avoided in individual cases.
Can you please explain this?
I'm reading this as "ministers should avoid the rap for the responsibility they signed up for" and should therefore be able to blame it on the bureaucrats.
This seems like a disturbingly political decision.
Plausible deniability and all that.
Either there's an independent public service making statutory decisions without ministerial input, or there isn't. The police is an obvious area where independence is critically important, as are other regulatory matters. The media is quite variable on how it seems to approach the issue, basically coming down on the side of the argument that supports the narrative of the current article.
However, if Parliament does provide for operational decisions by ministers such as in the Immigration Act, then the minister gets to wear it if it goes awry. The point of the noted review was that the minister (Iain!) should delegate more decision-making than he did. However, his predecessor, Michael Woodhouse, had a run in with the media over too much delegation because a public servant suspended a resident sex offender's deportation (for reasons that would have seen the deportation notice suspended by the immigration protection tribunal on appeal anyway). I wasn't trying to give the minister plausible deniability, just observing that the media treatment was inconsistent with previous reporting on the general issue of ministerial decision-making and delegation.
- Good man
- Wasn't suggest you were responsible... more just wondering where that imperative comes from.
Either the buck stops with the Minister, or there is absolute black and white in terms of rules which are not flexible.
The elected representatives set the rules and they're applied with no discretion.
So was this change driven by the bureaucrats to protect the elected rep? Or imposed by the elected rep to avoid political fall out?
That was my question.
I'll have to reread your post to make more sense of it.
Thanks for answering.
-
The economic rollercoaster continues, this time in a good direction.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/124119700/shock-fall-in-unemployment-to-49
-
Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine granted provisional approval by Medsafe
The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has been provisionally approved by Medsafe, with certain conditions placed on the company. In its assessment of the vaccine, the medicines regulator met with the Medicine Assessment Advisory Committee (MAAC) for six hours yesterday to receive advice and recommendations. In a statement, Medsafe said the MAAC supported the decision. However, the provisions mean the company must meet 58 conditions that are placed on it. "Of these, 52 relate to requiring additional manufacturing data from the company, for instance as it upscales its manufacturing," Medsafe group manager Chris James said. "Six of the conditions relate to additional clinical information such as regular updates from clinical trials, and ensuring we receive any information on safety concerns from around the world." The regulator said it would continue to monitor use of the vaccine in the country including analysis of any potential side effects, which it said may include a sore arm or headaches as with other vaccines. James said a full assessment on the vaccine's safety, effectiveness and quality - to guide the approval decision - started in November last year. "The data was provided on a rolling basis, which streamlined the assessment process and enabled a timely approval without compromising the rigour of the review of the vaccine," he said. "All the data is considered and we then complete a benefit risk assessment, which allows us to balance the benefits of the vaccine against any known risks such as side effects. We have determined there may be some minor side effects such as a painful arm and headaches - these are not uncommon in other vaccines.
In the statement, Director-General of Health Ashley Bloomfield said the decision brought about a new chapter in New Zealand's response to the pandemic. "I want to reassure New Zealanders we will also be applying the same rigour to all subsequent vaccine applications."
"We will be ready to start vaccinating people as soon as a vaccine arrives, and at this time the first vaccine we're expecting is Pfizer in this quarter," he said. Last week, Pfizer said in a statement it was on track to deliver the first doses to New Zealand in February, and committed to its agreement to supply 1.5m doses during 2021. If delays with Pfizer's vaccine were to occur, New Zealand had other vaccines to fall back on, Bloomfield said. New Zealand has agreements with AstraZeneca, Novavax and Janssen as well for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
I understand there's a media conference at 2.45pm (?).
-
Those numpties who were on camera a couple of weeks back after that case up here, were in town today with placards, anti vax, anti pfizer, TVNZ corruption etc...I stood for a few minutes hoping they'd come try talk to me, but they were too enthralled speaking to some guy that looked like it was his first time visiting the big smoke...
-
So I picked my brother up from MIQ last night.
Bit farcical TBH mainly due to the people picking up the plague carriers not the system. You were given a specific time to arrive but typically Kiwi reaction most people ignored this. When I arrived there were already 20 odd cars being directed to park in spaces by masked security. You'd have thought people would want to keep their distance from someone who works at an MIQ but plenty of drivers were out of their cars right in the faces of the security demanding they be let in. In the end security let cars in in the order they arrived ignoring the fact that often the person they were picking up hadn't checked out yet. It all got sorted but was more shambolic than it needed to be. Once inside the barrier it was very well organised you were directed to a car park by the hotel loading dock - staff took your number plate and my brother walked out loaded his luggage and we were gone. Zero exposure to risk unless you were one of the muppets who ignored instructions and common sense.
My bro said MIQ was OK. He worked moist of the day, the room was big enough, he had a balcony, could get fresh air and looked out onto gardens and could go for a walk twice a day. Initially he would have preferred to be in the CBD but now he believes an airport hotel is a better option. ore space basically. Thought it was really well organised. Hotel is making an absolute killing though. 100% occupancy every night and all they provide is the room and three economy class meals / day. Run with the need for a minimal number of staff. No reception - he never even saw it. No room servicing except for once a fortnight.
We went for a couple of jars once we'd dropped his gear at my place and he said it was a real culture shock. First time he's been outside without a mask since March. He got a bit freaked at people mixing so freely said it all feels wrong. Can't believe how lucky we are. Said you see it and read it but until you feel it you forget what it's like - and this was at 10 pm on a suburban Wednesday night.
Couple of snippets I've picked up over last 24 hours. Even the elderly won't start getting vaccine until Q3.
Air NZ CEO doesn't expect international travel to be back to a pre-COVID normal for 5-7 years Said they are working through a number of scenarios but no one really knows what is going to happen. Expects / hopes a trans Ta$man / Sth Pacific bubble to open sometime this year but also anticipates it will be a stop start affair which will impact on numbers due to uncertainty. Said there are hundreds of practically worthless wide bodied jets mothballed in the desert and this may prompt someone to buy a few and set up a low cost airline which could change the landscape but that would be a really risky venture.
-
Hopefully it doesnt come to this, but as alluded to in the article, this could be a test for the Health & Safety in the Workplace legislation if an employee contracts the virus and gets seriously ill or dies as a result of someone else in the organiations refusal to get vaccinated.
-
@dogmeat disturbed by the 5-7 year prediction. Only because I'm suspect of anyone predicting that far ahead for anything these days. Certainly the antithesis of light at the end of a tunnel, and hardly a "can do" attitude at the forefront. Depressing for families apart in the golden age of globalisation. ☹
Appreciate you're only the messenger here though dm, thanks for gossip.
Coronavirus - New Zealand