Pushing censorship

I expected a better analysis than Hamish Rutherford’s hamfisted commentary on the Clare CurranCarol Hirschfeld ‘secret’ confab (March 29).

Is a meeting at 8.15am in a busy cafe ‘‘secret’’? Is asking for the views of a well-informed staff member contrary to ‘open’ government? Should a journalist believe the only person able to communicate openly is the chief executive or chairman of the board?

Given the poor performance of many top executives, Rutherford might well think about treating the issues more thoughtfully.

After the Paula Rebstock fiasco, which occurred because she believed that experienced staff in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade should have no right to speak against destructive changes, why does a journalist apparently defend the enforced censorship that exists in public organisations subjected to a line managerial model? Is this serving the public interest?

I applaud Curran’s evident belief that intelligent and capable people staff Radio New Zealand, whose views should be asked as a part of an ‘‘open’’ government policy. I also think that Hirschfeld did not forfeit her right to free speech as a New Zealand citizen out of office hours.

Curran is promoting ‘‘open’’ government and communication by recognising that a journalist’s knowledge deserves respect. DOLORES JANIEWSKI

Highbury