When you get it wrong though, you really get it wrong.

Guilty as charged - a monumental fuck up.

So, the stuff I was getting confused was this.

I wanted to refer to the Supreme Court decision surrounding Bell's despicable actions Couch vs. Attorney General [2008] NZSC 45.

To quote from the Auckland University Law Review (2009 p261) "At the time of the robbery Bell was on parole ... for his first offence of serious violence, an aggravated robbery of a petrol station."

The litany of cock ups reads like a black comedy, particularly in light of Bell's alcohol addiction: "the probation officer supported Bells decision to undertake a liquor licensing course with a view to .. employment"

Sheesh.

It's a shame my lack of attention to detail has detracted from the underlying point I was trying to make (this was written before the release of the reports about Corrections recently) that front line public servants have to make judgement calls based on experience, and sometimes they are going to go wrong.

That's what rationing is all about. We ration according to our discretion every day. NZ wouldn't be able to afford a system that operated any other way. Zero fault tolerance is extremely expensive...

then we can see the advice provided to the minister and the minister can publicly stand up and defend his or her reasons for departing from the advice

That's exactly what is meant to happen. The difficulty is that the advice often doesn't make it that far... hence my hypothetical example about drug policy, which was operational advice given in the UK over several years.

I would argue there are many situations in NZ where even conceptual matters fail to be discussed openly because of fear of disclosure - and I mean well below the policy level.

This has been a thread of near-poetic cynicism ...

Strangely enough my original intent was to look on the bright side... despite the misfiring of some legislation (mainly due to operational interpretation) we still have a damn fine Public Service.

The blatant hyperbole about Corrections & ACC being excreted at the moment to create a crisis seems somewhat extreme... I hope most of us realise there's plebs like us trying to keep things going despite the distraction this stuff causes... it really does affect the people on the front line.

Mind you, with the employment market like it is I doubt you'll hear anyone complaining!

Wrong. William Bell had almost a hundred convictions, it sure wasn't his "first offence".

Fair point - this was a cock-up on my part. I meant to say violent offence. I would refer you to the commentary in the recent ruling from the Court of Appeal.

I'm not disputing the tragedy and horror of him and the situation.. just suggesting that there are thousands of others who fit the same profile. They just didn't go ape-shit crazy, and how is a Probation Officer with hundreds to cover going to select?

I struggle with my 14 direct reports... imagine having 50 or 100?

It's called "accountability". Frequently its trivial and for the wrong things, but its certainly better than the alternative which our Public Service Manager so fervantly (sic) desires

I suspect I was being too opaque.

I am a fervent champion of accountability and transparancy. My fear is that the Public Sector gets manipulated by various interests to become less open despite legislation such as the OIA.

For the avoidance of doubt, I want to be able to publish more evidence based material. I can't, because, for apparently political reasons we are (as public servants) prohibited from direct contact with the public.

We are required to communicate through rooms full of people who tailor our words.

Sorry if I gave the impression I was trying to dodge questions.. my point was we would like to be more transparent, but the machine has evolved to neuter the OIA due to extreme interpretation.

And as a line manager, my "information" rarely makes it to an OIA response.