Right to Know day, week whatever.

Right to Information Day in Queensland on 24 September and not just a day but Right to Know Week in NSW 28 September-5 October. 

Celebrate, dance in the street, make a fuss.

OGP High Level meet in NY this week

Ten heads of government/heads of state are to attend the meeting, the latest to sign up President Hollande of France. No official word on Prime Minister Abbott's response to an invitation from President Yudhoyono but as I've heard from New York that a delegation from Australia is expected to attend as observers, maybe that says it all. 

Follow the meeting on Twitter at #OGPatUN and @opengovpart

It will be livestreamed starting at 3.45pm 24 September New York time, by my calculation 5.45am 25 September AEST.

Yesterday President Obama spoke at the Clinton Global Initiative on the importance of civil society:

Citizens remind us why civil society is so essential. When people are free to speak their minds and hold their leaders accountable, governments are more responsive and more effective. When entrepreneurs are free to create and develop new ideas, then economies are more innovative, and attract more trade and investment, and ultimately become more prosperous. When communities, including minorities, are free to live and pray and love as they choose; when nations uphold the rights of all their people -- including, perhaps especially, women and girls -- then those countries are more likely to thrive.  If you want strong, successful countries, you need strong, vibrant civil societies.  When citizens are free to organize and work together across borders to make our communities healthier, our environment cleaner, and our world safer, that's when real change comes.

A citizen is a powerful force for change. That is why more and more governments are doing what they can to silence them -- from Russia to China to Venezuela and more. "This growing crackdown on civil society is a campaign to undermine the very idea of democracy. And what's needed is an even stronger campaign to defend democracy," the President said.  

I'd been told Foreign Minister Bishop intended to be there. 

A statement on Australia's  support for civil society?

What chance a 'principled framework to balance secrecy and open and accountable government' ?

Close to zero I venture.

The August 2012 briefing note finally released (well, minus attachments) in response to my FOI application for work undertaken on the Australian Law Reform Commission Report Secrecy Laws and Open Government of December 2009 reveals little progress in those three years on what should have been a major project across government but it doesn't tell the full or current story. 

FOI reforms mooted in 2009 and referred to in the ALRC report were introduced in 2010, but as we know the government is intent on removing a central element of those reforms by disbanding the Office of Australian Information Commissioner.The ALRC strongly supported the concept in its report.

Whistleblower protection law referred to in the ALRC report and mentioned in the briefing note came to pass (finally again) in 2013.

The Attorney General could enlighten us with a statement about where things stand in 2014 although the file might be buried at the bottom of in-trays in AGD. The advice from within no doubt says the report was commissioned by the previous government and arguably no response is required from this one.

However the disclosure reminds that the ALRC recommends a rational, comprehensive approach to reform of the crazy patchwork of secrecy laws currently on the books and sits there possibly gathering dust while the government today introduces changes to legislation that will add to our sizable collection of secrecy laws. I haven't seen any mention of the report in the discussion of the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 or  the changes to legislation foreshadowed by the Attorney General and still to come. 

Maybe it's too much to expect in the current climate but the ALRC proposed "a new and principled framework striking a fair balance between the public interest in open and accountable government and adequate protection for Commonwealth information that should legitimately be kept confidential."

More than 60 recommendations outline what should be done to bring about some coherence and consistency in the statute book's 500 plus secrecy provisions:

• repeal the wide catch all offence provisions in the Crimes Act - s 70 is described as "seriously out of step with public policy developments in Australia and internationally" - and introduction of a new general offence provision limited to disclosures that harm essential public interests, 

• principles to guide review of the hundreds of specific secrecy offences in legislation and the creation of any new ones such as those currently before parliament,

• and measures to improve information handling practices across government including sorting out in a more definitive fashion the relationship between FOI and secrecy laws. 

The draconian s 70 'unauthorised disclosure' provision is among the worst of the complex, confusing and uncertain secrecy laws on the books. We have had voices urging change to this provision that go back to former High Court Chief Justice Sir Harry Gibbs in 1991. One of the few  against change however was the recently replaced secretary of the Attorney General's Department Roger Wilkins, who told a senate committee way back in 2008 (page three of the transcript Thursday 27 November 2008 (PDF 192KB):"My personal view. I am not sure of the government's view on this. My personal view would be that you should not interfere with section 70 of the Crimes Act. That should remain intact". 

Whether in Wilkins time, extending to 2014, ministers had a chance to consider the matter is another question.

In 2014 a new principled framework for secrecy and open government is way overdue.

The ALRC has laid out how to go about this. Alas, no sign of starters. 

Attorney General's Department to lead on FOI decision making, but where?

Ever get the feeling you have been done over by experts?

Me too after a 16 month battle over access to a document held by the Attorney General's Department.

The worry is that the 'experts' in this case are those chosen by the government to provide guidance to other agencies about the act after the Office of Australian Information Commissioner is disbanded at the end of the year.

A win of sorts in the end as the department has now conceded in light of an assessment by the Office of Australian Information Commissioner (I was in the queue there for 12 months) that contrary to the original and internal review decisions, the document is not a deliberative process document exempt under s 47C and should be released. 'Concede' for the most part that is.

LaurMG 'Frustrated man at desk'

AGD argues now and for the first time that two attachments aren't an integral part of the document itself but separate documents outside the scope of the application, so why don't I just make a fresh application.To my amazement the OAIC agree that the attachments (they don't appear to have seen them) are separate documents, but tell me the door is open to argue the toss about this in the AAT at $861.Thanks. Argh! 

I'll leave comment about the substantive issue of the response to the report to another post but as to FOI, don't laugh when you see that the document in question is about the government's response to the Australian Law Reform Commission report Secrecy Laws and Open Government in Australia. 

The report was completed and handed to the then attorney general in December 2009. Once tabled in Parliament in March 2010 it hasn't been heard of since.

In May 2013 I lodged an FOI application for the most recent summary of work undertaken and yet to be undertaken on the report. The AGD said it held one relevant document, a briefing note to the then secretary dated 24 August 2012. (Hmm, yes I too read something into the fact the most recent document was nine months old at the time.) 

But no dice on access - the document contained matter "in the nature of consultation and deliberation" and the factors against disclosure, "for instance release of the material could damage the relationship between an agency and the Government," outweighed any factors in favour of disclosure.

The back and forward with the department is at Righttoknow and in previous posts here and here. I sought review by the OAIC in August 2013. When they got around to it, they concluded the exemption did not apply, the document should be released and the department complied.

 
Given the assertions about the public interest considerations against disclosure you would  think the relationship between the department and the attorney would be shot to pieces as a result of the disclosure. And that officers of the department now won't do their job properly.

More realistically neither will happen as I expect this was classic gaming, grasping at straws to delay the inevitable or see me off.

I wonder whether the department bothered to alert the Attorney General to the disclosure when they released the briefing note on 5 September, given the dire predictions about likely effect; whether the OAIC said anything to the department about wasting the time and resources of both; or whether senior management at AGD pay any attention to poor form like this.

AGD cited the following public interest considerations against disclosure. Who knows, they may turn up in a "how to" guide in future for dealing with an application for a document just like this - years old that throws light on the department's handling of a major costly and comprehensive law reform report. The only question, how to what?

• "whether it is contrary to the public interest to disclose draft material that has not gone before the relevant minister (or ministers) and does not reflect the government's settled policy (or even a settled view within an agency) and would have cross-portfolio implications if released

• whether it is contrary to the public interest to provide the public with a factually incorrect sense of direction that an agency (and the Government) is taking on matters of criminal law, where the material in question uses strong language that would suggest it is the Government's final settled position when it is not

• whether an agency could effectively discharge its responsibilities if material prepared for internal consultation and consideration was released prematurely  and damaged  the relationship between an agency and the Government and

•  whether it is contrary to the public interest to disclose material that would inhibit policy officers  from considering (and documenting) a full range of draft responses to ALRC recommendations."

G20 countries chance to lead on transparent company ownership?

Support Transparency International and the UnmaskThe Corrupt Campaign: 

"We want the leaders of the world’s biggest economies – the G20 – to publish lists of the real owners of all companies, and to make it harder for the corrupt to travel internationally and enjoy their ill-gotten gains. Help us send a loud message to global leaders on Thunderclap to unmask the corrupt."

Australia's support for democratic values on display in New York next week

The government's participation or non participation at two high level meetings in New York next week will be an indicator of the importance it attaches to support for democratic values and matching words with actions.

No, not talking about the Prime Minister participating on 24-25 September in a meeting of the UN Security Council convened by US President Obama to address the threat posed by foreign terrorist fighters, delivering Australia’s national statement at the General Assembly, or meetings with key leaders ahead of the G20 meeting in Brisbane.

Or talking about the Climate Summit on 23 September the day before he arrives when Foreign Minister Bishop will be in Australia's seat as UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon welcomes 125 heads of state and government or deputies.

No, talking about two other high level meetings that the likes of President Obama, President Yudhoyono and other heads of government and senior ministers think important enough to squeeze in while they are in New York - meetings about support for civil society and for open, transparent and accountable government.

Where will Australia stand?

With civil society?
On 23 September at the Clinton Global Initiative, President Obama will reconvene partners to advance the Stand with Civil Society agenda. The State Department describes the forum this year as providing "a platform for partners to take stock of progress made to date, define a strategy for the next year, and make commitments that will have a lasting impact on the future of civil society."

It follows a meeting a year ago where President Obama brought together government and   philanthropic leaders to launch the agenda, 

"a groundbreaking effort to support, defend and sustain the work of civil society amid a rising tide of restrictions on its work. Together with the philanthropic community and working through existing initiatives and partnerships including the Open Government Partnership (OGP), the Community of Democracies, Lifeline, and Making All Voices Count, participants agreed to collaborate to: (1) promote laws, policies, and practices that foster a supportive environment for civil society in accordance with international norms; (2) coordinate multilateral, diplomatic pressure to roll back restrictions being imposed on civil society; and (3) identify innovative ways of providing technical, financial, and logistical support to civil society. 

Australia was there last year, the government signing on to this joint statement issued by the White House at the time. 

No reply so far to my email to DFAT about Australian representation.
(Update: A Yes on this one: Although it is not mentioned in the Media Release outlining her schedule in New York I have been informed the Foreign Minister will attend the Clinton Global Initiative event as part of her visit.) 

With the Open Government Partnership?
On 24 September President Yudhoyono of Indonesia and President Peña Nieto of Mexico will chair a meeting at UN headquarters, “Open Government Partnership: Citizen Action, Responsive Government." The gathering will celebrate the third anniversary of the OGP.

Seven other heads of state or government (so far) are listed as speakers to government and civil society represenatives of the 64 countries that have joined or are in the process of joining the partnership, including President Obama, the presidents of South Africa, Tanzania and Croatia and the prime ministers of Georgia and Norway.

President Yudhoyono has sent an invitation to Prime Minister Abbott to attend.

This follows his invitation to the PM to attend the Asia Pacific Regional OGP meeting in Bali in May. The PM said he was unable to accept on that occasion because of Budget preparations. 

At that meeting President Yuhoyono noted that Asia-Pacific countries are under represented in the OGP and called on others in the region to join.

Australia has mostly dithered since first invited to join the OGP in September 2011. The previous government indicated intention to join in May 2013.

The latest public statement by Finance Minister Cormann is we are still 'considering.'

Participation in the meeting would confirm Australia stands with Indonesia, Korea, the US, UK, Canada, New Zealand and other OGP members for open, transparent and accountable government that encourages and empowers citizens and is responsive to their aspirations. 

No reply to my email to the PM, Foreign Minister, Minister for Finance and local member Malcolm Turnbull about the invitation from President Yudhoyono.

NZ PM releases cabinet papers-not end of the world so far.

NZ Prime Minister Key released four Cabinet papers today.

No kidding.

They relate to decisions concerning the Government Communications Security Bureau which provides "information assurance and cyber security to the New Zealand Government and critical infrastructure organisations, foreign intelligence to government decision-makers, and cooperation and assistance to other New Zealand government agencies."

The release came in response to claims by Edward Snowden of mass surveillance of New Zealanders by the GCBE.

And tomorrow the sun will rise over the land of the long white cloud and the earth will continue to turn on its axis.

Contrary to the deeply held view in Canberra that release of anything giving the slightest hint of what is submitted to cabinet, or records a cabinet decision must be protected at all costs from disclosure for 28 years or so.

Even that isn't always long enough particularly if the subject is anything even vaguely connected to intelligence.

The documents do not disclose deliberation in the cabinet room, which we can all agree I expect, sensibly underpins the principle of collective responsibility and cabinet solidarity.

The Kiwis publish (admittedly selectively) cabinet documents as a matter of routine. So too do Queensland and the ACT (ditto and in summary form).

But it's end of the world stuff as far as Prime Minister and Cabinet and other guardians of the cabinet process are concerned.

Prime Minister Key demonstrates that excessive secrecy that surrounds the cabinet process here should be seriously questioned.

The NZ documents and the timeline is explained in the Media release as follows:
 
3 April 2012 - Cabinet Minute (PDF3) shows Cabinet asks for business case on cyber security protection initiative.
September 2012 - It becomes clear there are issues with the GCSB’s surveillance of Mr Dotcom.
After this Rebecca Kitteridge is called in, problems with the legal framework and internal issues in the GCSB are identified through reviews.
March 2013 - PM tells GCSB not to bring business case forward. Informs GCSB it is too broad. Budget contingency funding will be rolled over and used for something else in cyber security.
September 2013 – Cabinet Minute (PDF2) shows formal rescinding of request for business case and notice of new, narrower project. The business case had been known only as initiative 7418 through the Budget process because of its classification.
July 2014 - Cabinet agrees to Cortex, a narrower cyber security programme. (Cab paper and minute PDF 1 and PDF4)

Trust drops to the cellar while a smorgasbord of integrity issues struggle for attention

Lukas Plewnia

Read Peter Hartcher in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday "A glaring omission in our political life" and weep: despite everything we are seeing unfold in NSW, the Abbott government, well as of last Friday, is not interested in a federal body along the lines of the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption. 

The Opposition weren't much interested either when they committed to establishing a Parliamentary Integrity Commissioner in 2010 then let slide a bill introduced by The Greens Adam Bandt in May 2012 to create the National Office of Integrity Commissioner.

On that front at least change is in the air. Hartcher quotes ALP Senator John Faulkner as saying the Parliament 

"needs to ensure the events in NSW cannot be repeated in Canberra or anywhere else in Australia. In my view, the sorts of issues being raised at the NSW ICAC do not miraculously stop at state or territory borders." "This will be a real challenge for our current political leaders," Faulkner observed.

 Indeed.

The government, with control of the lower house can determine at the end of the day what goes and what doesn't but debate in the Senate might at least cause reflection on its  defence of the status quo, in essence 'we've got everything covered, believe us."

In debate in May on The Greens renewed effort to push the National Integrity Commission bill, government speakers rubbished the idea. National Party Senator O'Sullivan said the government is proud of Australia's position and reputation

"as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. This is a recognition of the net measure of respective coalition governments in this place and in states right across this country. As a political movement, we have a sub-zero tolerance to corruption." .

As Hartcher notes, Federal parliamentarians don't have a code of conduct. Conflicts of interest of the kind on display in the Palmer party go through to the keeper. 
In October 2012 Steve Ciobo then in opposition and now Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer said a code of conduct 

"is nothing more than a feel-good exercise that will deliver no net tangible benefit whatsoever."

It's not just the absence of an integrity commission and a code of conduct for parliamentarians. 

Just before the 2013 election the Federal Parliament voted to exclude from the Freedom of Information Act the parliamentary departments that spend large amounts on helping them do their job. Silence since.

Last year the government response to latest round of improper or dodgy use of travel entitlements by Federal parliamentarians hardly moved beyond 'Oh dear.' Recommendations years ago by the Belcher committee continue to gather dust. One, precluding use of printing allowance during an election campaign, might put an end to the double dipping identified by Nick Evershed at Guardian Australia recently. 

Political donation and lobbying laws are weak, and reform efforts in recent years amounted to little. While some third party lobbyists who lobby ministers and public servants are subject to a registration requirement that doesn't amount to much, lobbying federal parliamentarians including the Palmer party that can make or break a piece of legislation for the government is a regulation free zone.


Then there's silence on a National Anti Corruption Plan despite obligations under the UN Convention Against Corruption ratified by Australia on 7 December 2005.

And silence too on the Australian Law Reform Commission recommendation five years ago that the exemption for political parties from the Privacy Act should be removed. To quote the report:

"In the interests of promoting public confidence in the political process, those who exercise or seek power in government should adhere to the principles and practices that are required of the wider community.." 

Whistleblower protection?  
While we have passable to good law to protect public sector employees ( overall rated middle of the pack among G 20 members) the major parties last year opposed changes that would provide protection for public officials who report wrongdoing by....
you guessed it, members of parliament.

NZ OGP National Action Plan panned for poor consultation process

Jorg Hempel

New Zealand initially showed even less interest in the Open Government Partnership than Australia, until UK Prime Minister Cameron had a word with Prime Minister Key in London last September, leading to an application to join in November. 

But it has kicked ahead in a fashion since while we dither along, still 'considering'  three years on.

NZ was represented by a minister at the OGP regional meeting in Bali in May and apparently submitted the required national action plan on 31 July. 

The Plan focuses on the Better Public Services Results programme; the ICT Strategy and Action Plan to 2017, and the New Zealand National Integrity System Assessment. 

I've heard rumbles of dissatisfaction from across the ditch for months with the way the government handled the process.

Last week NZ online news service Scoop commented that the three themes were pre-selected by the government and in the two meetings with the community and voluntary sector that did discuss the plan, participants were presented with these as ‘faits accomplis’:

Meeting invitees gave a strong message that an “Open Government Partnership Action Plan” needed to start from widespread consultation, openness and non-partisan ideas, not a pre-determined, pro-National Party agenda. That was back in April. Subsequently the Cabinet has signed off the plan and sent it to OGP international secretariat for ratification. Aside from the broad themes no-one outside of government has a clue about what the Action Plan contains

Given the use of urgency, low levels of meaningful consultation and increased level of concern expressed by NGOs about their advocacy role and more recently the Dirty politics revelations the Government must realise it is on shaky ground regarding openness and transparency. It has not been open with us about many things and so it’s hard to see how having NZ join up to the Open Government Partnership will be seen as anything more than lipservice. Even the most Pollyanna-ish amongst us might wonder quite what would change with an OGP Action Plan that has been devised by government with minimal public input and signed off in secret.

Open and Shut contacted Dr Michael McCauley Director of the Institute of Governance and Policy Studies (IGPS) and Associate Professor in Public Management at the School of Government at Victoria University for a comment:

There is a lot of truth to the criticism and I think it has been clear from the events that we (IGPS) have run that people have felt disengaged from the process and that consultation needed to be simultaneously deeper and broader.  I warned of this back in an early 2014 issue of Policy Quarterly (pdf) but I think, to be fair, (State Services Commission) would accept such criticism as well.  To be honest, though, SSC can only be held responsible to some degree – they had a small team with limited resources – and the bigger question is the political will behind the whole project. OGP was passed among several agencies until it settled at SSC and, of course, New Zealand was asked to join back when the project was created but the government turned it down at the time.  The important thing, however, is not what’s gone wrong but what can and should go right.   I am usually pretty sceptical of these kinds of initiatives but not only is OGP a genuinely worthy cause – and worthy as an end in itself rather than an instrumental end.  More importantly I’ve seen numerous cases in the Asia Pacific Region as to how OGP has made a difference.   Finally New Zealand is expected to be a leader in this by other countries: and it is genuinely expectation rather than hope.  I am confident, however, that the consultation issues will be solved, not overnight and probably not any time in the next few months but in time for the next Action Plan; there will be a robust and sustainable consultation infrastructure.  In fact there just has to be or else we may as well leave OGP alone.
 

There were plenty of examples in the first wave of OGP national action plans of government grabbing and keeping the ball without much acknowledgement of the civil society players who were supposed to be part of the team. It's not what the OGP rules require.

If, when, Australia takes the step to publicly commit, let's hope for a full, open and meaningful consultation befitting a real open government partnership.

Submission to NSW review of information access act

I dashed off a submission to the five year statutory review of the NSW Government Information (Public Access) and the Government Information (Information Commissioner) acts, squeaking in on the deadline on 29 August. 

The terms of the review by the Attorney General are limited to "determine whether the policy objectives of the Acts remain valid and whether the terms of the Acts remain appropriate for securing these objectives" so it's hardly a search for best practice. And as mentioned previously I'm no fan of the way the Department of Attorney General and Justice goes about the process.

Overall NSW did pretty well with the 2009 legislative reform package. But the act's objects  and the terms could do with some tweaking five years on. More in my submission below.

Meat on the bone for cause of action for unwarranted serious breach of privacy

Commissioner Professor Barbara McDonald

The Australian Law Reform Commission Report Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Age, tabled in Parliament today, is in response to the reference by then Labor Attorney General Dreyfus who in June last year asked that the ALRC look at innovative ways to address the problem and provide a detailed legal design of a statutory civil cause of action.  

Recommendations(pdf) 4-12 set out the design elements of a tort for a serious invasion of privacy,"if a statutory cause of action is to be enacted":

• the invasion of privacy must be either by intrusion into seclusion or by misuse of private information (Chapter 5);

• it must be proved that a person in the position of the plaintiff would have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in all of the circumstances (Chapter 6);

• the invasion must have been committed intentionally or recklessly—mere negligence is not sufficient (Chapter 7);

• the invasion must be serious (Chapter 8,) the invasion need not cause actual damage, and damages for emotional distress may be awarded (Chapter 8); and

• the court must be satisfied that the public interest in privacy outweighs any countervailing public interests (Chapter 9).

The last point, the commission notes, is "the crucial ‘balancing exercise’, in which courts weigh privacy against other important public interests, such as freedom of speech, freedom of the media, public health and safety, and national security. The ALRC recommends that such competing interests be considered when determining whether the plaintiff has a cause of action. It should be an element of the tort, rather than a defence. A plaintiff should not be able to claim that a wrong has been committed—that their privacy has been seriously invaded—where there are strong public interest grounds justifying the invasion of privacy."

The commission wasn't asked to go further than report on the elements of a cause of action but you don't need special powers in reading this extract to work out what they would say if they were: that our our legal system should provide recourse, best by statute, in the event of invasions of privacy either by intrusion upon seclusion or by misuse of private information that are serious, committed intentionally or recklessly, and that cannot be justified in the public interest. 

With various wrinkles the Victorian and NSW law reform commissions, the ALRC in 2008, most of the submissions to the previous government's issues paper on the subject, and the recent parliamentary committee report on drones reached the same conclusion.

But given the comment said to have been made by Attorney General Brandis some time back (hard to track down) that "the Government has made it clear on numerous occasions that it does not support a tort of privacy" don't expect the Abbott government to rush to act, soon or maybe anytime. 
(Update: Paul Farrell in The Guardian clears this up:
"A spokesman for the attorney general, George Brandis, said: “The government has made it clear on numerous occasions that it does not support a tort of privacy.”)

That probably won't stop The Australian wheeling out the shock and awe about the impact such a tort could have on free speech, leaving unexplored and even unreported (as was often the case after 2008) that the recommended elements recognise that privacy must  be balanced with other rights, such as the right to freedom of expression and the freedom of the media to investigate and report on matters of public importance.

The report includes a suite of other recommended measures:

• Commonwealth legislation to replace existing state and territory laws regulating the use of surveillance devices, to include a ‘responsible journalism’ defence to protect journalists and media groups who make appropriate use of a surveillance device for journalism in the public interest; 

• extension of the existing powers of the Privacy Commissioner to investigate breaches of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) to allow investigations of complaints about serious invasions of privacy more generally, that is that do not involve breach of that law;

• and if a tort for a serious invasion of privacy is not enacted by the Commonwealth, that the law for an action for breach of confidence be strengthened enabling courts to award compensation for emotional distress, and that state and territory governments  enact uniform legislation providing for a statutory tort of harassment.

Royal Commissioner calls for reinvigorating 'frank and candid', secrecy not part of the formula

Among other findings about the Home Insulation Program, Royal Commissioner Hanger takes the government and public servants to task in his report tabled in Parliament yesterday.

Of particular interest are the commissioner's observations about public service advice (Chapter 14) in light of the decisions about the need for confidentiality in the advice process by the Australian Information Commissioner, and agency FOI knock backs I have seen since arguing refusal of access is necessary if public servants are to retain the trust of ministers and in order to ensure frank, comprehensive advice is forthcoming in future:

• senior managers failed to provide candid advice to Ministers including briefings to Minister Garrett (14.3.2);

• if "frank, honest, comprehensive, accurate and timely advice of the kind referred to in section 10(1)(f) of the Public Service Act had been given at key junctures", there is little doubt the tragedies that occurred would have been avoided (14.3.4);

• in a section on frank and fearless advice in the context of the public service today (14.6) a call for the Australian Public Service "to reinvigorate its willingness to provide in writing advice that is as frank and robust as the advice it is willing to give verbally. This requires cultural change of two kinds:14.6.6.1-senior officials and Ministers being aware they are entitled to act contrary to advice. The fact they received advice contrary to the way in which they act is no necessary or automatic basis to impugn the decision. 14.6.6.2- public servants giving advice must be encouraged to think clearly, to free themselves as much as possible from institutional biases and taboos and to have courage when giving advice."

The Commissioner goes on to suggest the need for more 'Black Hat' thinking in advice work, emphasises the importance of multifaceted advice, and observes that it was a shame that those entrusted with the implementation of the HIP did not adhere to Australian Public Service Commission practical guidance on values and code of conduct (14.6.9-14.6.11).

While there is nothing in the report that supports the line of current thinking in some Canberra circles that advice must be protected under FOI from the glare of the public spotlight even after the thinking/deciding stage has passed, that potential FOI disclosure poses a threat to frank and candid, and that stronger FOI protections are required if public servants are to do their job properly, I'm sure those who argue this case will try to use this case study to effect somehow.

The Commissioner (1.3) also comments on issues concerning the conduct of the inquiry, none of which are flattering to the government or the public service: 

• over reach on public interest immunity claims that were advanced in a slow and cumbersome manner ; 

• gaps in his powers for example to compel the production of a statement by a potential witness (despite a recommendation never acted upon, from the ALRC four years ago), and constraints on current and past public servants arising from section 70 of the Crimes Act (the ALRC recommended five years ago repeal of the current draconian 'unauthorised disclosure' provision and a replacement based on identifiable harm - that also hasn't been heard of since);

• conduct by the Commonwealth and public servants that hampered his work including a failure initially to locate a large number (tens of thousands) of emails; that 'current public servants were not entirely forthcoming with the Commission as none volunteered any information, many had no recollection of important events and none was prepared to contradict another; that with very few exceptions public servant witnesses chose not to make submissions and "extraordinarily" the Commonwealth chose not to make submissions when invited to do so. 

• the Commonwealth did not suggest one witness that should be called and produced documents piecemeal and haphazardly in 147 tranches. In commenting on the inadequacies of the government document management system the Commissioner notes that mysteriously 100,000 documents were produced towards the end of public hearings that were said to "not form part of the established filing system."

Senator Eric Abetz is the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service. 
Look forward to his wisdom in due course.

New light shines on parliamentarians' entitlements

Rosie Williams at InfoAus has turned published government information into something more searchable for transparency and accountability purposes, this time using details published by Department of Finance about use of entitlements by Federal parliamentarians. 

Finance publishes claims/repayments twice a year, six months after the end of each period. They have improved accessibility over time, now presenting information about individual senators and members by state and territory. 

The entitlement picture is still far from complete as outlined in October last year. On the broader issue, the government's reaction to the scandal that came to light at that time was entirely inadequate.

(Publication of information about use of entitlements by the states remains firmly entrenched in the Dark Ages.)

Rosie has provided new search functions (Rosie @Info_Aus is interested in feedback, corrections) that enable easier access to Finance material including by Party and type of expense making these tallies available:
ALP
Coalition
The Greens.
  
By expense type providing comparative tables,among them:

Travelling Allowance
Overseas Travel
Chartered Flights
Telecommunications 


And sure to attract interest the details of Repayments and Adjustments

Rosie turned parts of the Federal Budget Papers into more searchable information with BudgetAus two years ahead of this year's first step by the government to publish data from the 2014-2015 Federal Budget in Excel & CSV formats.

She also developed KnowYourPlace an interface to search the ABS data on Socio Economic Indicators by town, council area, electorate or state.

Nick Evershed at The Guardian, one of the small but growing band of data journalists also utilised Finance material on administrative costs to locate printing, distribution and website costs for each parliamentarian in various time blocks to provide this insight into use of entitlements Politicians billing taxpayers twice for election campaign material 

Yes Minister playbook still handy for FOI decision makers in Victoria

One example doesn't prove that Freedom of Information in Victoria is in bad shape, but add this knock back for ambulance response times to the indicative evidence pile:

In refusing the FoI request, Ms Sorrell said releasing local area response times could harm AV’s business by frightening off subscribers in areas where response times were longest, and even encouraging people to drive to hospital. She also claimed the release of local response times might “unduly excite public controversy”, “cause confusion” and disadvantage AV in its long running pay-and conditions dispute with paramedics. “There is a very clear public interest in maintaining public confidence in the delivery of ambulance services ... and increasing subscriptions for ambulance services,” she said.

The Herald Sun says Ambulance Victoria has refused to hand the information over to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, forcing court action certain to delay things until after the election in November.

The Hun earlier reported that the Opposition was refused access under FOI to average response times for AV’s 250 branches, losing an appeal to VCAT where "senior member Robert Davis accepted AV is foremost a commercial operation, rather than a public service."

The reporter tells me the Tribunal found branch response times would not help the public know how long an ambulance was likely to take in a particular locality (as ambulances often work outside their branch areas) but said "there is a public interest in members of the public knowing emergency response times in their local area". AV also accepted an Auditor-General's recommendation in 2010 that it publicly report "a breakdown of performance by region/locality".

"Cause confusion"and"unduly excite public controversy" suggest the Yes Minister playbook is still well thumbed in Victoria:

Sir Humphrey: There is a well established Government procedure for suppress… deciding not to publish reports.
Jim Hacker: Really?
Sir Humphrey: You simply discredit them.
Jim Hacker: Good heavens... how?
Sir Humphrey: Stage one, you give your reasons in terms of the public interest. You hint at security considerations – the report could be used to put pressure on goverment and could be misinterpreted.
Jim Hacker: Anything could be misinterpreted. The Sermon on the Mount could be misinterpreted!
Sir Humphrey: Indeed – it could be argued that the Sermon on the Mount, had it been a government report, would almost certainly not have been published. A most irresponsible document. All that stuff about the meek inheriting the earth could do irreparable damage to the defence budget.

Confusion and unnecessary debate have been irrelevant public interest considerations under Federal, Queensland, NSW and Tasmanian laws as a result of the FOI reforms of 2007-2010, but Victoria is yet to go anywhere near comprehensive review and reform of its 1983 legislation.