Like bolstering the proposed Information Publication Scheme by an amendment to specify in the legislation some additional categories of information to be published on the web, and/or increasing the Information Commissioner's powers from largely advisory to require certain information be published, a departure from the proposed scheme that leaves an agency, beyond a very low - set minimum, to decide for itself what is published.
Filling the gap in the accountability and transparency framework by bringing the parliamentary departments within the scope of the act.
There wasn't now time to do what should be done to closely re-examine and question the blanket and partial exclusions from the act in Schedule 2, and the exemptions. However the unfortunate backwards step from the Exposure Draft to the virtual status quo on the business affairs exemption, and the failure to list "frankness and candour" as an irrelevant consideration for policy advice and related documents, should both be addressed.It was also too late to unravel the proposed fees and charges for access, but we would not be doing much to reduce cost as a disincentive by going down the proposed path in the bill to abolish application fees and retain charges.
And on review arrangements an agency or Minister shouldn't have a second bite by having a right to review of an Information Commissioner decision on the basis it was wrong, as this opened up too much scope for delay and stalling tactics.
Senators Ludlam, Ryan and Cameron had questions, but the transcript when available will reveal what transpired, and the evidence and questioning of other witnesses. A note in passing- no-one asked me a question about the Parliament coming under the FOI Act.