NSW Greens push for a better shield law

NSW Greens Legislative Council member David Shoebridge has introduced a bill to provide a rebuttable presumption for protection of a journalist's source in state court proceedings, setting the scene for a debate on the scope of privilege. The bill is modelled on Commonwealth legislation passed in March and would apply where a journalist engaged and active in the publication of news in print or online seeks to protect a source who gives information to the journalist in the normal course of the journalist's activities.

Shoebridge told Parliament the privilege would protect "journalists, bloggers and online commentators who may not be in paid employ but who are a necessary part of getting the word out and giving the public information in the modern online world." That modern online world appears to be a foreign one for NSW Attorney General Greg Smith who foreshadowed legislation in March that would limit the privilege to journalists employed and working in the mainstream media, probably excluding both freelancers not in an employment relationship, and bloggers even including your humble scribe. Hmph!

The Minister and the Commissioner respond to questions

Transcripts of Q and A at Monday's launch of the Office of Australian Information Commissioner involving Minister O'Connor and Commissioner Professor McMillan at a doorstop at Parliament House, and an interview between the Commissioner and iT News both contain useful insights. 

The Minister resorted to  "Media 101" tactics in responding to questions at the doorstop about concern over a government proposal that companies providing internet access log and retain customer's private web browsing history for law enforcement to access when needed: he instead answered the questions he wished were asked about the new disclosure regime. (The Privacy Commissioner is reported to have said last week he is against such a scheme.) The Minister sounded much more at home answering questions about terroprism threats.

Some of the interesting responses are grouped below.

Joy to the world and tax lawyers!

Expectations are high. Federal Freedom of Information reforms commence today, as Minister for Privacy and Freedom of Information Brendan O'Connor writes (Sweeping away a culture of secrecy) (earlier glitch fixed) in the Sydney Morning Herald, and other Farfax outlets. Adele Ferguson  in Business Day says the changes are "being greeted with excitement by tax lawyers."

Red book questions, FOI answers

 During Senate Estimates hearings on Monday (Finance and Public Administration), Opposition Senator Cormann asked officers from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (F&PA 38) about Freedom of Information requests received for the incoming government brief. The issue was taken up later by Senator Abetz (F&PA 52).

Applications have been received from the Seven Network and the West Australian, the first two months ago, but no decision on release has been taken. Each applicant has been told the important news first, that access would cost them $3740.80, and no splitting the cost between them should they each proceed. No one appears to have raised with the PM the question of publication of parts of the brief in line with the Treasury and Finance precedents, or pointed out how this might usefully contribute to public debate on matters of public interest-even on the topic of open government. Officials and the minister at the table were strongly attached to the idea that precedents set by others mattered not a jot, and that a departmental officer independently would make a decision on the applications free from ministerial direction. Sounds good, except the questioners were right to point out that the Prime Minister could simply direct that parts of the brief be published thus providing access at no cost and presumably to anyone interested.

That would be in line with her stated commitment to a new style of openness in government. And send a message to help with that transformation from 1 November that Australian Information Commissioner Designate McMillan spoke about earlier in the week.

Some of you just love your FOI and the cut and thrust of Estimates as well. For you, extracts follow:

Federal FOI changes to transform government

With important Federal Freedom of Information Act reforms to commence on 1 November, Australian Information Commissioner Designate Professor John McMillan has been talking to the Sydney Morning Herald's Matthew Moore. Worth noting:

Professor McMillan predicted the changes would ''transform government'' as departments realised old rules were gone and there was a new emphasis on ''pro-disclosure.'' He had held meetings with heads of departments and staff to explain how to adapt to the laws by the time they come into force on November 1. ''I say to them, 'You will have to change the way you do business. The government expects cultural change. You have to move from information control to information sharing,''' Professor McMillan said.

In some agencies senior managers were resistant to the new laws and still had the mindset that ''we are creating documents to support the government or for internal purposes''. That idea was ''erroneous'', the professor said. The new laws state specifically that ''information held by government is to be managed for public purposes and is a national resource''...

There have been many criticisms of how the law has operated since it was passed by the Fraser government in 1982. The professor said it had led to a fundamental change in access to information and had become an ''informal part of the constitution''. He expected the amended law to deliver a similar level of change. He supports making compliance with the laws part of the employment contracts for departmental heads.

As information commissioner, he said he would act as a ''champion'' for those seeking access to information in the public interest. ''[The commissioner] is really an open government champion,'' he said. ''All you are advocating is better information management in agencies and a pro-disclosure culture.''

 

Frank and fearless safe after all

Opposition leader Abbott's concerns about the flow of frank and fearless public service advice as some sort of reason for not co-operating with Treasury to allow a costing of policies for the independents lasted 24 hours before this backflip: about 12 hours longer than the earlier reasons given, that Treasury couldn't be trusted, or wouldn't be able to understand how to go about accurate costings of Opposition policy commitments

Abbott's earlier concerns about frank and fearless had the strong support of Shadow Finance spokesman Robb who took it to another level, arguing that the public service briefs prepared before the election warranted state secret status, if a public service 'down tools" was to be avoided:

''The red and blue books are fundamental to successful transition to government, and that's another important plank of convention in the way in which our government runs,'' he said. ''That material is based on frank and fearless … advice by the public service, and if they thought that could become public knowledge, they would not conduct that sort of assessment again.''

The Herald Sun quoted Professor John Williams, a University of Adelaide law professor,  supporting this line: ''If the public service knew their full and frank advice would be made public, they may not give it,'' he said.

As pointed out here on Friday, if we were looking at a hypothetical Freedom of Information issue, public servants know that since the introduction of the act in 1982, documents of this kind are potentially subject to disclosure unless contrary to the public interest.  As to the red and blue books, that post reminded that the Treasury itself - not regarded as at the leading edge when it comes to disclosure - released parts of its incoming minister's brief in 2007, in response to an application by Michael McKinnon.

As to concern about the impact of disclosure on advice in the future, the issue is whether the threat to frank and fearless is a relevant factor in determining the public interest, and what weight should be attached to this, as against other considerations that favour disclosure in the public interest. If Treasury's costings have the potential to influence a decision about who governs, the public interest in disclosure would seem strong.

The argument about the relevance and weight of frank and fearless has been going on since 1985 when the President of the Administrative AppealsTribunal, Justice Davies in Re Howard and Treasurer of Commonwealth of Australia (1985) 7 ALD 626 (yes that John Howard) acknowledged in a list of factors ruled to be relevant that disclosure which will inhibit frankness and candour in future pre-decisional communications was likely to be contrary to the public interest. But he added that evidence was needed to support such a claim. (Just about all the other public interest factors listed in that decision, again the subject of much judicial conjecture since, will be legislated out of action in FOI amendments that take effect in November.)

Justices Callinan and Hayne in the High Court in McKinnon's case breathed some oxygen into the argument, saying it was something that couldn't be ruled out. But in a subsequent McKinnon case, Deputy President Forgie rejected the argument advanced by the Prime Minister's Department saying there was no evidence to support it. In the course of her decision she noted [122] - APS =Australian Public Service:

The APS Value set out in s 10(1)(f) of the Public Service Act is concerned with the responsiveness of the APS to provide frank honest, comprehensive, accurate and timely advice and in implementing the government’s policies and programmes. It is a Value that complements the Value set out in s 10(1)(a) to be an apolitical service. It is intended to “... ensure that governments have a comprehensive view of issues and access to a full range of options on which to make decisions.”

Deputy President Forgie went on to refer to the Australian Public Service Guide [123] (one of its indicators whether an agency is reflecting the Value in practice is "The agency has a culture that supports the provision of frank  and  fearless  advice), the Australian National Audit Office guidance [124], the relevant Australian Standard [125], and Chief Executive instructions issued to the APS by then head of the Prime Minister's Department on record keeping [128] as all supporting the obligation on public servants to provide written, frank and comprehensive advice to ministers on key issues. But she remained open to evidence to the contrary.

The duty doesn't sit well with claims by Abbott and Robb that public servants won't continue to do what they are tasked to do if the product is to become known to the independents, or heaven forbid, public knowledge

Come 1 November with the commencement of amendments to the FOI act, a new equation tilted even more firmly in the direction of disclosure will apply, including a consideration in favour of disclosure where this would "inform debate on a matter of public importance." Frank and fearless will still be required. Potential public scrutiny should keep them even more honest.

Election briefs for government MPs/candidates none of anyone else's business

 Markus Mannheim in the Canberra Times today:

"The Federal Government has used the public service to prepare secret reports on every Australian electorate, in breach of its own policy. Eight government departments have confirmed they wrote the reports - detailed analyses of all spending in each MP's seat - but refuse to make them public. Labor said before it won office in 2007 that similar reports produced for the Coalition government showed it had misused and politicised the bureaucracy.... The party's then public accountability spokeswoman, Penny Wong, said the briefs should be available publicly or not produced at all. ''The Howard government seriously thinks taxpayers' money is their own. Australians are entitled to know how their taxes are being spent,'' she said two weeks before the 2007 election. The Canberra Times reported in 2007 that several Liberal ministers had given the briefs to their party's MPs and candidates to help them plan their election campaigns. At the time, Labor denounced the production of the documents as a ''scandalous'' abuse of public resources for political ends."

Don't worry folks, in the hard copy Times the Minister may have said from May next year, when new FOI act publishing requirements kick in, this is just the sort of thing the public service should be making available to us all:

For more on this story, including details of a response by Cabinet secretary Joe Ludwig stating that, under Labor's new freedom of information laws, departments should proactively publish information, see the print edition of today's Canberra Times.

Decision 2010 and Freedom of Information

The Attorney General's debate on Friday saw Opposition shadow Senator George Brandis announce an FOI initiative, but otherwise there has been no mention during the campaign about this or related transparency and accountabilty issues. Brandis said:

".. a Coalition Government will transfer responsibility for freedom of information laws from the Special Minister of State to the Attorney-General’s portfolio and a pro-disclosure culture will be observed in fact not merely in rhetoric. As Attorney General I will drive the right to know agenda just as former Liberal Attorneys-General, including Peter Durack, the father of FOI, in Australia, have done." 

Putting policy responsibility for FOI and privacy in the Prime Minister's Department with the Special Minister of State responsible for this area and other accountability and integrity issues from November 2007 was a Rudd government initiative that deserved a tick. The proposal to put FOI (and presumably privacy, also administratively linked with FOI in the Office of Australian Information Commissioner) back in Attorney General's doesn't.

Trust me with your details, I'm a politician

www.musiczoo.com

Liberals' battle plan to win key marginal seats in The Advertiser last week reported that Liberal South Australian Senator Alan Ferguson had sought "personal profiling information" from up to seven local councils in Adelaide's north. One council helpfully passed news of the application to the former mayor who happens to be the Labor Federal Member for the area, who appears to have passed it on to the paper. Senator Ferguson is said to have used freedom of information laws to request details of all businesses in the area, including names, postal and physical addresses; lists of all citizens naturalised since January 2006; copies of all petitions lodged with council; names of all registered volunteers; data on all council buildings used for community activities and the people or groups who use them; and all committees connected to the council.

I agree with many of the comments that much of this is or should be in the public domain, available to anyone interested in knowing about local happenings.

But politicians "trawling" the record raises a broader issue - and no one is holding breath expecting action on this before the Federal election later this year, or ever - concerning the large hole in privacy laws for political parties and those engaged in politics. The gap permits collection of personal information not just from the public domain but from wherever they can find it, subject to little scrutiny, with no citizen rights to know or correct what is held, or limitations on subsequent use and disclosure.

Gadens Lawyers on FOI Reform legislation

This summary from Gadens Lawyers of the Federal Freedom of Information Reform legislation isn't bad, and the table of exemption provisions is helpful, although the article doesn't cover much beyond changes to exemption provisions.

Federal Information Commissioner cashed up

The Federal Government's Budget Papers for 2010-2011 (PM&C Portfolio Budget  Statement- Program1. 4) include an entry for the Office of Information Commissioner allocating $1.5 million in the revised budget for 2009-2010 (last year's papers included $2.961 million, obviously a little ambitious about the start date), $5.4 million for each of  the next two years  and $5.5 million in 2013-2014. Around $7 million is separately allocated to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner which will become part of the OIC, a separate statutory agency operating within the Prime Minister's portfolio, when the Office is established.

NSW new era from 1 July; but as to Canberra...?

Deidre O'Donnell the inaugural NSW Information Commissioner took up her position yesterday and Government has announced the Government Information (Public Access) Act will commence on 1 July 2010, replacing the Freedom of Information Act from that date. Everyone will be pleased at that- Parliament passed the legislation last June. 

The Office of Information Commissioner has published some additional guidance material but leadership including selling the need for change to those at the top of the tree, and encouraging agency wide re-examination of information handling, publication and access policy and practices in line with the spirit, intent and provisions of the act have to be priorities. As does public awareness, which seems scant at present.

It's not just a job for the commissioner either. As The Greens Lee Rhiannon said in welcoming the new laws, "their strength will be largely determined by how well they are championed from on high."

"One of the strengths of this new legislation is its potential to change the culture of secrecy in state and local government agencies by requiring the proactive release of information. Premier Keneally must play a key role in driving this reform, or the public will suffer the same frustration as it did under NSW's shoddy old laws. A strong public awareness campaign is critical to educate people about how to use the new system... While former Premier Nathan Rees drove these changes to NSW's freedom of information regime, Kristina Keneally has been silent on the issue since taking office. Premier Keneally could garner a lot of good will in the eyes of the public by putting her energies into championing openness and accountability.

Meanwhile in Canberra, Federal Parliament resumes today for the Budget session with a long list of bills on the table and two uncertainties about the Freedom of Information Reform legislation - whether it gets a slot in what is now a crowded pre-election agenda, and the extent of support in the Senate for what the Government is prepared to accept in a final version of the bill.

Order of Australia Honours Secretariat subject to FOI Act

Senator Bob Brown in Estimates hearings in February raised an issue about the Order of Australia Council, noting it was not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. He and others concerned about transparency and accountability in this area will be interested to hear that documents held by Honours Secretariat staff of an administrative nature are in fact subject to the Act. Not for reasons I speculated about at the time in Orders of Australia beyond question? (although they might still hold) but because of a more straight forward reason. Honours secretariat staff are employed under the Governor General Act 1974. Section 6A(2)  of the FOI act reads:

For the purposes of this Act, a document in the possession of a person employed under section 13 of the Governor‑General Act 1974 that is in his or her possession by reason of his or her employment under that section shall be taken to be in the possession of the Official Secretary to the Governor‑General.

Karen Kline, referred to in that post as having raised the issue of the Order of Australia Council's FOI status in a submission to the Senate Committee examining the Reform Bill, resorted to FOI in January to seek the return of original documents lodged with a so far unsuccessful nomination, which you would have hoped wouldn't be necessary.  After no response she took the matter to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. At a conference on the case in Brisbane on Friday  Deputy President Hack accepted an Australian Government Solicitor submission that there was a flaw, finding the FOI application was invalid because the fee had not been paid- despite the fact Ms Kline applied for remission of the fee in making the application, the Official Secretary had not asked for payment or otherwise assisted her to make a valid application, and a few days before the conference indicated a willingness to waive the fee. None of this was relevant to the problem that the $30 had not been paid at the time, as required by section 15.

However in the written submission lodged on behalf of Stephen Brady, the Official Secretary (left), Justin Hyland, Senior Executive Lawyer Australian Government Solicitor, after noting ".. it is not possible to request access to documents of the Secretary of the Order of Australia," indicated a change of thinking on the issue of the application of the Act to documents held by the Secretariat:

However in considering the matter further, we have noted that the documents in question are in fact in the physical possession of Honours secretariat staff,who are employed under s 13 of the Governor General Act 1974. It follows that under s 6A(2) of the FOI Act the documents are deemed to be in possession of the Official Secretary. Therefore, to the extent the documents to which access is sought relate to matters of an administrative nature, a request for access to those documents may be made.

This important principle having been accepted, another issue likely to arise in the event of further resort to use of the FOI act is the interpretation of  document relating to "matters of an administrative nature," the words used in Section 6A(1) to delimit the scope of the application of the act to documents held by the Official Secretary. This section has not been subject to judicial interpretation, although the same term is used in sections 5 and 6 regarding documents held by courts and tribunals and has been the subject of several decisions that focus on the meaning in the context of the independence of such bodies. What s 6A means is another matter, but similar issues may arise particularly regarding documents that relate to a particular nomination for an Order of Australia award.The Official Secretary of course also has available all the exemptions in the FOI act.

Government response to Senate Committee

The Government's response to the Senate committee report on the Freedom of Information reform bills has been released, with circulation of Supplementary Explanatory memoranda. With regard to the major issue of contention, as far as the Committee was concerned, the change of onus in the Tribunal to the party that seeks review, the Government proposes removal of the concept of onus altogether from both Information Commissioner and AAT review.  Minor issues are conceded such as the designation of  the Commissioner as Australian Information Commissioner and an appointment for the office holder to the Administrative Review Council. Two errors and oversights in the legislation are addressed.

Whether the onus issue proposal is enough to get this across the line in the Senate remains to be seen. The Committee wanted the status quo retained- with onus in the AAT on the agency or Minister.(Correction:I had a "moment" here-the Committee recommended removal of onus in the AAT. The Dissenting report dismissed the idea.) I'm struggling to see how removal of onus might work in practice in the interests of achieving the object of the Act-it seems entirely dependent on the Commissioner or the Tribunal holding the agency fully to what the law will state is an obligation to use best endeavours to assist in reaching the correct decision. Nothing has been said publicly about the other issue in the report suggesting another look at fees and charges, or concerns raised in the opposition Dissenting report or by The Greens Senator Ludlam.

On the main bone of contention the FOI bill the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum states:

The amendments propose that the concept of onus be removed altogether from both an IC review and AAT review. The concept of onus was inserted into the original FOI Act because of a concern that the FOI applicant does not have access to documents claimed to be exempt. However, this justification does not recognise that the AAT has the power to make a new FOI decision and that the safeguard for an FOI applicant is that the AAT has the power to require production of exempt documents in order to make its decision on whether the document is an exempt document. A further reason to remove the concept of onus in FOI review proceedings is that it has an adversarial context which is more readily acquainted with civil litigation and criminal prosecutions which involve the exercise of judicial power than with merits review proceedings.

To complement the removal of onus in an IC review proceeding, amendment (4) requires an agency or Minister to use their best endeavours to assist the Information Commissioner to make his or her decision on the FOI review application. That measure is consistent with an existing obligation that applies in AAT review proceedings and reflects the principle that merits review is an exercise of administrative power and not judicial power.

The changes to the Information Commissioner Bill, as outlined in the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum are also minor.

Parliament resumes in May.

Whistleblower scheme details include a few qualifications on Dreyfus.

On the Government response to the Dreyfus Report on whistleblower protection, I'm happy to go with experts like Dr AJ Brown of Griffith University and others quoted in today's Australian saying the scheme as outlined is close to world best practice. Some points from my reading suggest the devil as usual is in the detail and some responses won't please everyone. There are qualifications on protected disclosures to the media that don't seem to have been mentioned in the first wave of media euphoria at the result. Unions, and I expect some members won't be happy at the response to Recommendation 25. The Minister says we can expect a bill to be on  the already crammed legislative agenda this year.

FOI reform...still coming

With Federal Parliament about to take a seven week break, the fine print of Minister Ludwig's comment on the Senate Committee report this week on Freedom of Information reform legislation that "the Government hopes to have the Bills before the Senate next sitting" is another reminder of the slow tortuous process associated with what the Government called in its first year in office a "high priority reform." It looks like it will get across the wire in year three, hopefully, if the shoals of a Senate in which it doesn't have the numbers are negotiated. That situation was a reality from day one. A better job in getting cracking on this earlier than the 16 months before there was a public peep, and in the process of consulting, responding to suggestions and facilitating public debate might have paved the way for a smoother run at this last hurdle. Passage of the bills after changes to attract the necessary votes from the other side of the chamber, will also depend on these reforms getting a slot in a very crowded Budget pre-election agenda. All in all not a great process.

FOI Reform Bill to face opposition in the Senate

The Senate Finance and Public Administration Report on the Freedom of Information Reform (Amendment) Bill and the Information Commissioner Bill tabled in the Senate today suggests the Government has some negotiating ahead to get the legislation passed. Given the current political climate, it's no surprise that while the  report recommends passage of the bills subject to some changes, and Greens Senator Ludlam is generally supportive but raises some other issues, the Coalition Senators' Dissenting Report ( Senators Ryan and Brandis) opposes the FOI bill in its current form. The Government's response is awaited.(Update: AAP reports Minister Ludwig said Labor would now examine the best ways to implement the report's recommendations.)

The six recommendations (see below) in the report pick up on a mix of important  and not so important issues.  A whole raft of other matters of significance have gone through to the keeper. The Committee notes [Chapter 3] the many different issues raised in submissions and evidence, and that there was little consensus on what should be amended. True, but as pointed out here previously most of those interested ran arguments for changes that had been submitted to the Government a year ago and had never received the benefit of discussion, comment or explanation on why if acted upon they wouldn't improve the legislation. So they ran them again, unfortunately with the same result.

At the end of the day, as the Committee notes, those who took an interest think the bills are good and welcome and want the legislation passed in this parliamentary sitting. Many of those ideas that came from outside the inner circle that has largely shaped the reform effort will have to wait for another day.

The discussion [3.22-3.48] of whether the bills "contain measures effective to ensure that the right of access to documents is as comprehensive as it can be" notes some of the weaknesses and gaps raised and enhancements proposed in submissions and evidence, but without much reasoning, concludes everything is basically OK, and recommends the Information Commissioner have a look in due course at whether exclusions of agencies from the scope of the act (such as the parliamentary departments and intelligence agencies) is necessary and appropriate.

The suggestion that retention of application fees and abolition of charges [3.50] would be a better answer to the cost barrier to use of the act than what the Government proposes, gets some support in all three reports. Senator Ludlam says he wants a response on this (mainly relevant to a regulation not yet promulgated) before a vote on the bill.

The onus of proof issue in the AAT gets close attention [3.64] and I think Senators Ryan and Brandis have a point that the Committee's recommendation that onus be removed from the act doesn't seem to solve the problem, seems inappropriate in the FOI context, and begs the question what procedure would be followed. They oppose Recommendation 4. The  report [3.80-3.82] says my concern that an agency right to a second merits review by the AAT could lead to delay tactics, should be assuaged by the requirement for an agency to comply with model litigant provisions (hmm), although the Coalition senators see something to this.

The report [3.90-3.102] gives the proposed Information Commissioner model a tick, but expresses concern [3.104-3.108] about adequate resourcing. 

The recommendations are:

Government grants out in the open, in some places.

In addition to the Commonwealth contract information in the public domain that has had a going over in the Sydney Morning Herald this week, another public disclosure advance worth noting is the publication of Government grants. I haven't checked what's there and what isn't but a big tick for putting grants from various agencies up on a single site. The search engine includes a city option to search grants by locality. Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner issued a direction in January last year that each agency publish a list of grants on its website. This centralised data base is a step forward on that. However the publication requirement should have a basis in legislation. Grants like contracts should be explicit publication requirements spelled out in the Freedom of Information Reform legislation currently before Parliament. They aren't at present.

I don't know what happens in the states in this area, other than in NSW where such a system doesn't but should exist, and again should be legislated. The modest publication requirements for state government agencies in the GIPA Act (yet to commence) could be extended by regulation in this and other areas (although contract disclosures in NSW are miles ahead of the Commonwealth) but there hasn't been a public word about any intention to do so. In NSW,you might find this information in an agency annual report, published up to a 15 months after the event, or if you make a specific application as the Opposition did recently to produce a couple of headline grabbers in the Telegraph some weeks ago. Automatic online searchable information on grants should be expected these days.

Spin and excessive secrecy not a good combination.

Richard Ackland in Secrecy is a denial of our rights in the Sydney Morning Herald on Friday and Hamish McDonald in War spinners on the defensive in the same paper on Saturday wrote on different aspects of the same issue: secrecy in the name of intelligence, national security, foreign relations and defence. Both think the balance we have struck is wrong and compare the situation here in a couple of telling respects with the US and UK. This is a diificult area of course, but it's not a good look for a government under the gun on a range of issues, that made much of its intentions to govern differently from the last lot.

Information Commissioner speaks on the challenges

Here is Information Commissioner Designate John McMillan on ABC Radio AM discussing his role and some of the challenges. The interviewer seems to be hopeful of better access to Cabinet documents in the FOI Reform/Commissioner world but there is only a slither of change to that exemption, and historians will like the fact we're moving from 30 to 20 years for open access under Archives legislation. Public awareness and leadership are up there as  priorities. In my view stronger powers- for example, to require an agency to comply with directions regarding pro-active publication - would aid the Commissioner in the culture change task-but that's another story.

"One of the roles of this new commission will be to take a central leadership in the development of a pro-disclosure culture in government. And we'll do that through familiar ways; through training, through publication of manuals and guidelines, through getting agencies to develop best practice in web publication, but also reaching out a lot more to the community, to journalists and to members of parliament to provide them with essential information about making document and information requests to government."