Your Right to Know resumes after a spell

Great to see media organisations today putting Your Right to Know up in lights with the front page wrap in publications across the country

together with articles and editorials that explain (or attempt to) why excessive secrecy is everybody's business.

'Mad as hell...' has been the theme for four months following police raids on the ABC and the home of journalist Annika Smethurst. A tepid response from the government has prompted action to roll out their biggest gun-front page news with a website and strong social media presence.


The six point agenda for reform has undergone slight changes since rolled out but amounts to:

• safeguards and checks around warrants allowing interception of journalistic communications and metadata; 

• real teeth for whistleblower protection to make the Public Interest Disclosure Act worthy of its name, and making sure the proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission aligns with public interest reporting and confidentiality of sources; 

• an end to cavalier classification of many documents as secret when they should be open to public scrutiny; 

• a revamp of freedom of information laws so government cannot so easily stonewall perfectly reasonable requests for access; 

• exemption for journalists from a thicket of counter-terror laws that would put them in prison for doing their job; and

•  a vigorous effort to ensure the review of the uniform defamation law resets the legal balance so that painstaking investigative journalism can go about its work of exposing corruption, crime and abuse of power"

The 'this is everybody's business' line is welcome but slow in coming. 

Many organisations and individuals have been slogging away on advocacy on these issues consistently for years.While journalists have had plenty to write about, media moguls put little shoulder to the wheel. 

For the record:

Twelve years ago media organisations were prompted by developments to shout from the rooftops they were not going to take infringements on the public's right to know silently anymore.

Australia's Right to Know was launched in May 2007 with News Limited Chairman and CEO John Hartigan in the lead, supported by Fairfax Media, FreeTV Australia, commercial radio, ABC, SBS, Sky News, ASTRA, West Australian Newspapers, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), AAP and APN News and Media.

News Limited chairman and chief executive John Hartigan said Australia had become a "lightweight democracy" with a tangle of clumsy laws impinging on the public's right to know..... Mr Hartigan said it was time for the media to strike back."It's a matter of drawing a line in the sand and saying 'this is enough'," he said.

The coalition commissioned the Independent Audit into the State of Free Speech in Australia which delivered a 316 page report in October that year- I was the Deputy Chair.

The coalition made some headway on a couple of the issues raised in the report during the Rudd/Gillard years, and stuck around for a year or so.

Then disappeared as David Salter and Richard Ackland both commented in 2010, Ackland as follows:

I wondered why Australia's Right to Know Campaign had gone a bit quiet. This is the outfit driven by the main newspaper groups (including Fairfax) and broadcasters to lobby for fewer legal impediments that get in the way of reporters' access to information. A quick check of the Right to Know's website shows the last big thing to happen was a big free speech jamboree in Sydney a year ago. There have been no papers, reports or analysis since 2008. Maybe it's because The Australian newspaper has decided to change sides and go into the suppression business.

I wrote this at the time:

In early 2008 months after my involvement with ARTK as Deputy Chair of the Independent Audit of Free Speech finished I went to see John Hartigan, then head of News Ltd and ARTK, to make a pitch for the establishment of a permanent, professional and appropriately funded body to research, advocate, educate and lobby on freedom of speech, and the public’s right to be informed. I suggested that the media needed to seek out others who shared these interests, and that it cede some power to them so that the coalition could seek to deliver what its name conveyed-Australia's Right to Know. Voices on these issues were weak, sporadic, divided and underfunded and the coalition was well placed to change this. Hartigan listened politely, nodded at the appropriate time but that was it-and my last contact with ARTK.

A vigorous campaign would have involved enlisting allies to the cause, seeking to better inform the public about the importance of this issue, and  mounting a collective professional effort to go for gold on the reform front. The few voices that spoke up were all over the place, leading the Senate Committee to observe recently that there were many suggestions for changes to the reform bills, but no agreement on what should be changed, therefore there was no point in or time to consider them seriously, including most of those put forward by ARTK.  And of course many didn't speak up at all. ARTK three years after it formed has no web presence, no publicly available collection of submissions, no scorecard of performance, no coalition partners.

ARTK seemed to never hear about the government initiative in joining the Open Government Partnership let alone hop in to support the reform agenda that the likes of Transparency International Australia, Accountability Roundtable and others have pushed since 2013.

The case for that vigorous ongoing campaign and a collective professional effort is more important than ever.

Attempt to abolish Office of Australian Commissioner is lead in the saddlebag as government commits to Open Government Partnership.

You can't imagine that the Abbott government initiated attempt, still ongoing after 18 months, to close out the Office of Australian Commissioner can stand for long in the Turnbull government's name as it commits to the Open Government Partnership. 

There are no bragging rights in that context for shutting down the independent advocate and watchdog for open government. Particularly when listing establishment of the office as a positive, a point picked up in Crikey.com today:

Australia commits to open government, sort of. More than two years after the former Labor government said it was going to join the Open Government Partnership, the Turnbull government has begun the process of finalising our membership. The OGP is a group of, so far, 69 countries that all agree to be more open, accountable and responsive to their citizens. To be a member you have to go through a two-year action plan. Australia’s plan will be drafted, with public consultation, over the next few months, ahead of a launch in July 2016. A website set up to detail Australia’s work to date curiously mentions the establishment of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner -- which the government is trying to close -- in 2010 as one of its achievements.

Given that the only thing keeping the OAIC open right now is the fact the current government doesn’t have the numbers in the Senate to pass legislation abolishing it, and there has been no change in policy after Malcolm Turnbull became prime minister, it is confusing as to why this was included. Perhaps there is change afoot?

That change can't come soon enough and should see withdrawal of the bill and steps to put the OAIC back on stable footing. 

Without rushing ahead on content of the national action plan, a review of information access law, policy and procedures in light of experience to date and 21st century expectations and technological capabilities should be a candidate for inclusion. The advocacy, oversight and review role of the OAIC should be part of the equation.

The Opposition and open, transparent and accountable government

My local member is the Hon Malcolm Turnbull. I sent this email today:

'Craig Thomler wrote to you in May with a number of questions concerning the Opposition's position on Gov 2.0, and open, transparent and accountable government generally.

He posted his message to you publicly in June on eGov AU but I understand is yet to receive a response.

Readers of Open and Shut would be interested in your response as well.

One of the issues raised in Craig's message was the Opposition's position on the Open Government Partnership. Since that time Attorney General Dreyfus has announced the Government's intention to join.

I am not aware of any public statement from the Opposition on the OGP and wrote to Senator Brandis and Julie Bishop last week in the following terms:

"I write to seek an indication of the Opposition's position regarding Australian membership of the OGP.

You will be familiar with the initiative launched by President Obama in September 2011.

Australia was invited to join at that time. In June 2013 Attorney General Dreyfus announced the Government's intention to do so. Since, nothing has been said publicly about the process for the development of the National Action Plan, required as part of the application and which must be developed in partnership with civil society organisations.

Australian membership provides an opportunity to improve transparency, accountability and open government here, and to advance our interests more broadly through engagement with the 58 other member countries and in the region in conjunction with the current co-chair, Indonesia.

I would welcome any comment you wish to make about the Opposition's intentions regarding the OGP and would bring your response to the attention of those who take a close interest in these issues.

Because of the international dimension, I have sent a similar email to Shadow Foreign Minister Bishop.

Thank you in anticipation."

Any comments you or your colleagues can make on these important issues will be widely distributed to the many individuals and organisations that take a close interest in good government.'

Peter Timmins.
Open and Shut
www.foi-privacy.blogspot.com.au

(Addendum: on the broader integrity front, Transparency International Australia has sent these questions(pdf) to the parties.) 

The IDC on the OGP a mystery no more

There isn't an interdepartmental committee in Canberra looking into Australian membership of the Open Government Partnership.

But there is an"interagency group," a distinction only a public servant, a former one or a Sir Humphrey fan would appreciate. As at February 2013 it had met once, in August 2012. Not several times and not in January.  

This correction of evidence to Senate Estimates by a senior officer from Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade sets the record straight. It is dated 21 March, the day after Senator Faulkner spoke in the Senate about discrepancies in the evidence from DFAT and AG's. PDF 36KB.

Here in full - as Sir Humphrey might say, just "to more accurately reflect the facts."

Dr Kathleen Dermody
Secretary of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee
Department of the Senate

I write to correct my evidence given to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Legislation Committee Estimates hearing on 14 February 2013.

I refer to Hansard pages 44 (line 50), 45 (line 2) and 46 (lines 14 and 30) where I referred to
an "interdepartmental committee" or "IDC" in relation to the Open Government Partnership.
I propose that the references to "interdepartmental committee" and "IDC" identified above
are replaced with "interagency process" which reflects the terminology I more accurately
used on page 47 (line 16).

I additionally refer to Hansard page 46 (line 9) where I stated "The IDC has met several
times." I would propose changing this to "The interagency group has met once." to more
accurately reflect the facts. When giving evidence I was under the impression that the
interagency group had met more than once. 

On page 46 (lines 19 and 20) I stated "I can inform you that to my knowledge the IDC has met most recently in January". I would propose changing this to "I can inform you that to my knowledge the interagency group has met most recently in August 2012." to more accurately reflect the facts.

I would also propose to amend the figures on Page 45 (line 39), which as Senator Faulkner
noted, were not up-to-date. The revised sentence should read "At the moment, 47 countries
have joined the initiative, and 11 have indicated their intention to join."

Yours sincerely
Richard Rowe
First Assistant Secretary/Senior Legal Adviser
International Organisations and Legal Division

The text of messages from Secretary of State Clinton in 2011 and UK Minister for the Cabinet Office Maude in 2013 for Australia to join, neither of which received an answer, were also tabled in response to questions. PDF 464KB

The OGP attracts interest from the top in the US, low key here

The US continues to talk up, and talk about the Open Government Partnership.

Last week  the White House issued a report card on US National Action Plan initiatives undertaken over the last year; the State Department included the OGP in an overview  of significant human rights developments in Asia and the Pacific; and President Obama said "countries all across the world" are signing up, in welcoming the interest of four African countries – Cape Verde, Malawi, Senegal and Sierra Leone - after meeting their leaders in Washington.

Here, after Senator Faulkner stirred things up in Estimates, the issue of Australian membership has again dropped from sight, despite indications over a month ago that Foreign Minister Carr was on board and DFAT was going to hurry things along.

Hopefully someone in Canberra close to the action is gearing up for a trip to London for OGP meetings later in April that would provide a chance to catch up with developments in the US and the other 57 countries actively engaged in thinking about how to improve democratic practices.

Australia and the OGP "inevitable, only a matter of time"

Australian interest in the Open Government Partnership has revived somewhat since the first mention here in September 2011 of our glaring but silent absence from the membership group.

It has been been rescued from the bin or retrieved from between the stools, now rating mentions in the mainstream media. Following those revealing Senate estimates hearings recently, Verona Burgess writing in the Australian Financial Review last Thursday (paywall) detailed the story so far. And Markus Mannheim in The Canberra Times this week gave it a run in the context of my "complex and voluminous" saga with Foreign Affairs and Trade - which he found "breathtaking" by the way. Me too.

But the latest is Australian membership is now talked about as "inevitable, only a matter of time."

Australian information Commissioner Professor John McMillan in a speech this week:

"Another way that governments around the world are changing their approach to information management is to join together in a new multilateral commitment, the Open Government Partnership. Fifty-eight national governments have or will endorse an Open Government Declaration that commits the participants 'to foster a global culture of open government that empowers and delivers for citizens, and advances the ideals of open and participatory 21st century government'. Australia has not yet joined the Open Government  Partnership - though I think it both essential and inevitable, only a matter of time....

It's March I know but as Senator Faukner put it in December, the time is now.

NZ sits on OGP as a "low priority" while members soldier on

An application under the Official Information Act via FYI for documents concerning New Zealand consideration of the case for joining the Open Government Partnership has produced this Foreign Ministry briefing note from February 2012.

 Like the brief from Attorney General's in Canberra in May 2012, it cited no arguments against joining, suggesting it was a matter of weighing the cost against the likely criticism for not signing up that would likely follow such a decision. Two recommendations were redacted, so the document isn't quite the full story but the note to the minister recommended that membership should be an overall low priority with a ministerial submission on joining to follow once scope, costs and the risks of membership were understood. As this is the only information held by the ministry, presumably that's where things stand 10 months later.

Meanwhile the minutes of the OGP Steering Committee meeting in London earlier this month refer to the adoption of a Multilateral Partnership Framework that will seek to leverage the capacity of multilateral bodies to support OGP eligibility and action plan implementation - something Australia and NZ wearing various multilateral hats will encounter in those fora; and a decision to expand the Independent Expert Panel by two to ensure greater regional balance – for example, by including Senior Advisors from Asia and Latin America; and a range of pressing financial, resource and other issues that Indonesia and those in the vanguard are facing. 

On additional IEP members, the Criteria and Standards sub-committee will issue an open call for nominations specifically for Senior Advisors from Asia and Latin America, and they will also ask current IEP members for recommendations, as well as draw on any relevant candidates from the last round of nominations. 

You would like to think an Aussie might fit the Asia bill, given Australia in the Asian Century and all that, but alas I'm dreaming.....

The OGP: Senator Faulkner says the time for Australia to join is now

Well goodness gracious me.

In a speech at the Melbourne search conference "Integrity in Government - A Work in Progress" today highly respected former minister, now government backbencher Senator John Faulkner spoke about the putative national anti corruption plan, the need for a Code of Conduct for parliamentarians, the long overdue comprehensive whistleblower protection legislation and electoral funding reform, and why there is no excuse for further delay on these important integrity reforms. And

the case for  Australian membership of the Open Government Partnership.

Excuse me while I pass the parcel - sorry can't help adding some emphasis. Is anyone in PM&C, DFAT, OAIC, and AGIMO listening? Take it away Senator:

The fourth key step the Commonwealth Government should take is to become a signatory and support the Open Government Partnership. Launched last year in New York, the OGP was established to promote transparency, tackle corruption, invigorate civic participation and, especially important in this digital age, harness new technologies, so the ideals of freedom and democracy are strengthened in implementing countries.

As the Open Government Partnership Declaration observes: “People all around the world are demanding more openness in government, calling for greater civic participation in public affairs, and seeking ways to make their governments more transparent, responsive, accountable and effective”. With its membership now numbering 57, national governments of the Open Government Partnership commit:To be more transparent at every level, by increasing the availability of information about the activities of government.To engage more citizens in decision making, so they participate more actively in their democracy, thereby making government more effective and responsive.To implement the highest standards of professional integrity throughout administrations, and To increase access to new technologies for openness and accountability.Though it goes by the name “Open Government Partnership” – it is in equal measure a partnership with civil society. Government does not have a monopoly on wisdom. The commitments of OGP member states are put into practice by working with civil society organisations to implement concrete plans of action. Already the OGP is setting a new global standard for good governance.

The OGP roll call of democracies committed to strengthening a global culture of transparency and accountability includes some of our oldest friends: the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Norway, and Canada. I am disappointed that Australia is a notable absentee.

The Australian Government has indicated that it is considering the detail of the initiative but has so far reserved its decision on participating in the Open Government Partnership.

Given the Government’s stated commitment to transparency, accountability and good governance, we should not hesitate to join this international effort to promote these fundamental values.  

Australia has always embraced and benefited from participation in international institutions and initiatives. We should seize the opportunity to do the same with the OGP.

It is ironic that the largest recipient of Australia’s overseas development assistance, Indonesia, is a very active member of the Open Government Partnership and currently a co-chair, yet, Australia is nowhere to be seen.  

When other recipients of Australia’s aid, such as the Philippines and Tanzania, are also members, I find it very hard to justify Australia’s absence. Membership of the Open Government Partnership would assist Australia to spread values of transparency and accountability in our region – a region where 22 of Australia’s 24 nearest neighbours are developing countries.

In light of the Gillard Government’s recent Asian Century White Paper and Australia’s new role as a member of the UN Security Council, Australia should utilise the OGP to encourage and support continuing efforts in our region to strengthen democratic processes and encourage greater scrutiny of government. 

Australia has a wealth of knowledge and experience to share with other nations who comprise the growing Open Government Partnership. For example, last November the Government unveiled a new Transparency Charter, which now publishes, online, detailed current information and results about what our aid program is delivering.

Internal audit reports and strategic direction documents are also being published online. Against this backdrop it is not surprising our Agency for International Development – AusAID  - was recently ranked 18 of 72 donors in the 2012 AID Transparency Index developed by Publish What You Fund – The Global Campaign for Aid Transparency.

Encouragingly, the report notes that AusAID had improved its transparency score by 31 percentage points and its rank by 16 places, but, it also made quite clear that Australia should consider joining the OGP.

One example of an international transparency and accountability initiative which Australia has committed to is the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative or EITI. At last year’s Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Perth, Australia actively urged leaders to recognise the importance of sustainable natural resource management and commit to the EITI.

The EITI promotes better governance in countries rich in oil, gas and minerals by seeking to reduce the risk of corrupt diversion or misappropriation of funds generated by the development of a country’s resources.Australia is a member of the EITI Management Committee and has so far committed $17.45 million (2007 to 2015) to the World Bank administered Multi-Donor Trust Fund and the EITI Secretariat.

With the only other EITI-compliant country in our region being Timor Leste, the OGP would provide an excellent opportunity for Australia to encourage our other developing resource-rich neighbours such as Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and the Solomon Islands to sign on. 

The OGP presents a great opportunity for Australia – a technologically advanced and open democracy – to underpin future commitments to openness, transparency, and accountability through engagement with an internationally recognised and respected multilateral initiative. Membership could only strengthen our democracy and governance. Through the Open Government Partnership we can advocate strongly for more openness in other nations while enriching our own.

The time for Australia to join is now.
 

Burma/ Myanmar to join OGP; Australia maintains silence

President Obama in a speech at the University of Yangon in Rangoon last week welcomed another entrant from the region seeking to join the OGP. They may have a fair way to go to meet the criteria. We on the other hand don't. We just need a little mettle.  

You would have to think that Australia's non-decision about joining has come up at least once in the many recent top-level meetings between our two governments.

But that kind of growth can only be created if corruption is left behind.  For investment to lead to opportunity, reform must promote budgets that are transparent and industry that is privately owned. 
To lead by example, America now insists that our companies meet high standards of openness and transparency if they're doing business here.  And we'll work with organizations like the World Bank to support small businesses and to promote an economy that allows entrepreneurs, small businesspeople to thrive and allows workers to keep what they earn.  And I very much welcome your government’s recent decision to join what we've called our Open Government Partnership, so that citizens can come to expect accountability and learn exactly how monies are spent and how your system of government operates.

Australia, a cocky on the OGP tin

According to the Centre for Law and Democracy:

"Since its launch in September 2011, the Open Government Partnership (OGP) has become the most high profile international movement for greater government transparency in the world."

But Australia (and New Zealand and every country in Asia and the Pacific regions except Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Mongolia and the Philippines) isn't one of the 55 Participating States.  Some in the region won't meet the eligibility criteria, others won't want to fly this particular flag. In our case our reasons haven't been stated, publicly at least. When I raised this earlier in the year, a government spokesperson said we were still considering and consulting. What, and who, who knows?

A contact who follows these developments closely recently suggested that foreign policy considerations- not wanting to be part of a group embracing aspirations that China doesn't share-played a part in our lack of involvement. I'd be surprised. That consideration didn't hold back founding governments such as Brazil and South Africa who share interests with China, for example through BRICS. India did back out after initial enthusiasm, but China's views or sensitivities, if they exist on this question wouldn't have been a consideration. Apparently India's concern was scrutiny that would accompany government self-assessment, and possibly, reluctance politically to engage in a public consultation at home on transparency.

My guess is those considerations loom large in Canberra as well when the hard nosed question "what's in it for us" is asked. Far easier to avoid international nosey-parkers and leave to others leadership in the search for best practice, and international heavy lifting to encourage improved standards in this area.

The Centre for Law and Democracy is already drawing attention to deficiencies in the Action Plans lodged by many participants.

I'm pulling together at present some information about right to information in the South Pacific. It's not a great story in the only region where Australia and New Zealand loom large and are well placed to lead through words, resources and example. The Cook Islands is the only country with an FOI law, Tonga is on the move and there are occasional references to good intentions in a couple of other countries as well. 

But Australia and New Zealand could both benefit directly, and indirectly have influence, from mixing more with those involved in "the most high profile international movement for greater government transparency in the world."