ACT Open Government website debuts with cabinet summaries

The ACT Government's Open Government website is up and running including a single disclosure log for documents released by government agencies in response to Freedom of Information applications, to be posted within ( a generous) 15 business days of release, plus media releases and data sets. And a summary of cabinet outcomes with material posted initially for the period June to September.

The Chief Minister's Welcome statement, " I am pleased that we will be the first Australian government to make a summary of our Cabinet outcomes available..." is welcome, but either makes a neat distinction or ignores the fact that the Queensland Government has been publishing Cabinet material including decisions since July 2008.

Those with long memories might also recall s 10 of the Victorian Freedom of Information Act  that came into effect in 1983, and still in force, requiring the Premier to "cause to be published on a continuing basis a register containing- (a) details of the terms of all decisions made by the Cabinet after the date of commencement of this Act; (b) the reference number assigned to each such decision; and (c) the date on which the decision was made. (2) The information referred to in subsection (1) shall be entered on the register at the discretion of the Premier." 

It was heralded at the time as groundbreaking. Notice it doesn't say when or how. There is this reference to cabinet decisions to 1993 at the Public Record Office. A search of the Department of Premier and Cabinet website for something contemporary produces zero results. A Victorian reader may know when it dropped off the radar and, ahem, why.

Other governments are yet to take such a grand step.

NSW disclosure logs update

The NSW Government Information (Public Access) Act requires each agency to publish on its website as open access information a disclosure log that records access applications that resulted in provision of access to information that may be of interest to other members of the public. Unless publication in this way would be contrary to the public interest.

A quick and far from comprehensive survey last November, five months after the publication requirement commenced, showed many NSW agencies at that stage had posted little or nothing on their disclosure logs. I then had people telling me I had no idea about the lack of resources and their other start up woes, messages received with some but not a lot of sympathy. In this second year of operation Information Commissioner O'Donnell is to take a look at this area of compliance according to the latest OIC news.

In the meantime a recent scan of a sample of agency websites shows things have changed in some instances. The experience confirms NSW lacks the uniformity and ease of access to disclosure logs achieved across federal agencies through adoption of the Australian Information Commissioner's logos scheme on many federal agency home pages.

While this is no competition based on numbers, congratulations to the Department of  Education and Training on the score of being up to date, although a quibble that all information can only be accessed by email request and nothing is posted online. I'd include Police for a commendation as well except you need investigation qualifications to find the log on their website, and if you want any of the released information you have to to fill in and lodge a form. Hardly leading edge.

As to reasons for what amount to nil returns over many months in some other agencies I'm all ears, acknowledging there can be valid lawful reasons for having nothing to post.

Journalists down in the dumps about FOI document dumps

More grumbles from journalists in Tom Cowie's Crikey piece about Friday (and other day) FOI document dumps by agencies in Canberra (Treasury the worst) that some see designed to reduce their enthusiasm and interest in making applications by giving others the chance to run off with the story before the FOI applicant can make something of what has been released. I'm not aware of journalist complaints about the similar Disclosure Log system in NSW, in place since July, where there is some sort of solace perhaps as no charges apply if information sought by an applicant under the GIPA act (s 66) is made publicly available before or within three days of being released to the applicant. Journalists fancy the Queensland formula: the Right to Information Act s 78 provides nothing about a document (including a copy of the document) released may be put on a disclosure log until at least 24 hours after the applicant accesses the document- extended to three days.

The comments on the Crikey website suggest some readers need convincing we should feel sorry for journalists, although some practices aimed at deliberate dudding seem unethical to me. There were a few wry smiles in Canberra at the National Information Law conference recently when Michael McKinnon of the 7 Network said journalist FOI applicants needed time to consider documents released without time pressures to use the material immediately on the day it is made available so as to ensure quality journalism, and he makes a similar observation in response to the comments on Crikey.  We'd like to think some newsrooms consistently choose quality over the race to be first, but that might be just wishful.

(Update- more scepticism about journalists woes.)

Tell the world or dud the journalist FOI applicant

In a submission to the Australian Information Commissioner on the Discussion Paper, Disclosure Logs, Professor Rick Snell has a suggestion for addressing the concern of journalists over potentially losing exclusive rights to material released in response to a freedom of information application when an agency simultaneously posts in the disclosure log at exactly the same time documents are released to the applicant:

"I would suggest the Information Commissioner adopt a guideline whereby the applicant can make a request on whether any released information be delayed from general release up to the 10 day maximum period. The applicant making this request should justify where it is in the public interest for the Agency to delay updating the Log for this specified period. Some applicants will be happy with immediate release, other applicants such as journalists, researchers or members of parliament or NGOs may have good reasons to have a period of exclusive access. Where applicants do not specify a grace period then the Agency is free to publish at its discretion."

He disagrees things simply should be left entirely to an agency or minister

"I would reject the suggestion that “Agencies and ministers could invite applicants to propose or negotiate the date of publication, provided this occurred within the ten working days stipulated in s 11C. The discretion would remain with the agency or minister to decide the actual date, but they would better understand any special concern of the applicant.” This option gives too much discretion to agencies and does nothing to prevent the manipulation of the timing to disadvantage particular applicants including, but not exclusively, journalists. The alternative of allowing the applicant to nominate the grace period rewards and protects certain users and adds little extra burden or restrictions on agencies."

This makes sense-if any Commissioner guideline can be made to stick. I've mentioned previously that a guideline to which an agency "must have regard" might fall short if and when push comes to shove, and won't necessarily guarantee a uniform approach across government.

Conrad Poirier WikiMedia Commons

Michael McKinnon of the 7 Network told the National Information Law Conference last week of several instances of Treasury going out of its way to provide other journalists with information sought in applications by him, presenting them with the story on a plate with exquisite timing, and leaving him with not much at all.  While acknowledging the point also made at the Conference by Professor McMillan that governments always have the right to release information whenever they like, when this is done to spite the applicant and for no legitimate public purpose it sounds unethical to me.