Timely reminder:“Democracy dies behind closed doors.”

David Cole, the Honorable George J. Mitchell Professor in Law and Public Policy at Georgetown University Law Center writing in The New York Review of Books reflects on drone strikes and surveillance, and given the incredible extension in what technology can deliver, the importance of transparency. 

Professor Cole while acknowledging secrecy is sometimes necessary, ticks various boxes about the extent to which a degree of forced transparency has had a subsequent restraining influence on US policy and programs, but needs to go further:

We won’t have a chance to arrive at defensible policies on surveillance and targeted killing if the questions are not fully and fairly debated. When the balance between individual rights and security is struck in secret one-sided determination, as has been the case with both drone killing and electronic surveillance, as well as the CIA’s enhanced interrogation program, it will inevitably be skewed. Increasingly, our governments seem to be insisting that our lives be transparent to them, while their policies remain hidden from us. For the sake of democracy itself, we must do all we can to resist that impulse.

Australian readers might ponder the situation here in light of this Business Insider list in June 2014 of what the world learned in a year of Snowden leaks.

We had or are having something of a debate about the powers given to Australian security services, metadata and data retention. 

But as Martin Place and Paris are sure to raise questions about the need for ever more information about all of us in the search for the deranged, driven and malevolent, let's plug for Professor Cole's full and fair debate. 

Something we missed here following revelations for example about Australian involvement in those drone strikes and the PRISM and XKeyscore programs, spying on our friends and in this case their lawyers, the shared arrangements we have entered into to pool information about citizens, and who here in government let alone the rest of us knows what is going on.

More from Professor Cole here:

CIA torture revelations reveal transparency and accountability differences as well

The redacted Executive Summary pdf (525 pages) "Study of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program, "describes in more than 500 pages a dysfunctional agency so unprepared to handle suspected terrorist detainees after 9/11, that the CIA bought into private contractors' proposals for torture, and then lied to Congress, President Bush, the Justice Department, the public, and to itself about the purported effectiveness of the program." (National Security Archive).

US reaction

"OpenTheGovernment.org welcomes the long-overdue release of the Executive Summary of the (report). We were appalled by the 11th-hour attempt to intimidate Senator Feinstein and the Intelligence Committee out of releasing the report, and relieved that she resisted that pressure. The argument that government abuses cannot be revealed because of their severity is incompatible with the First Amendment, the rule of law, and accountable government.
As Senator Claire McCaskill said yesterday, this was “gut check time for our democracy.” OpenTheGovernment.org’s Executive Director, Dr. Patrice McDermott, stated, “the suppression of the report would have ended the last, best hope of ending the unjustified secrecy regarding CIA torture. Instead, we have taken a meaningful first step towards restoring oversight and democratic accountability.”

 UK reaction
Tony Blair to face grilling over CIA torture as his own Labour party calls for evidence

Tony Blair and his former ministers face a grilling over what they knew about CIA torture as their own Labour party demanded they come clean. A chorus of senior Labour figures yesterday said the former Prime Minister along with Jack Straw and David Miliband should appear before the parliamentary committee examining whether Britain was complicit in the brutal US interrogation programme. It came as Sir Malcolm Rifkind, chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), gave the strongest signal that the trio would be called before him. But pressure was also growing for a full judicial public inquiry to investigate the claims...

Australian reaction
Professor George Williams Blood on many hands in CIA torture scandal

There is no suggestion that Australian officials used torture. Instead, we were complicit in the US torture program. In contrast to the UK, which successfully demanded the return of its citizens from Guantanamo Bay, Australia failed to take action to protect Habib and Hicks, despite emerging evidence of their mistreatment.  The problem was not merely one of silence and acquiescence. Australia's political leaders, including Prime Minister John Howard, were some of the strongest international supporters of US actions at Guantanamo Bay. Despite irrefutable evidence of what occurred there, this support has never been retracted.
In other nations, the harm done to citizens at the hands of the US has led to wide ranging inquiries. By contrast, Australia's leaders have shown no appetite to investigate these matters. Both sides of politics have resisted any inquiry that could determine whether Hicks was tortured, and whether Australian officials bear responsibility for the treatment of him and Habib.
America has a lot of soul-searching to do about its departure from the most basic standards of decency. We also need to come to terms with our involvement in these programs. It is past time that a judicial inquiry was held to ascertain how Habib and Hicks were treated, and whether any compensation is due to them. The public has a right to know the truth of what occurred, and to know that measures will be taken to ensure that our leaders do a better job of protecting Australian citizens in the future.

Oh for an Aussie Sunshine week!

Sunshine Week in the US, so on St Patrick's Day no less, I'm green with envy at the  organisation, scope and range of activities to highlight the importance of access to public information funded by the Knight Foundation, Bloomberg, American Society of Newspaper Editors and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. This selection of resulting media coverage on day 2 turns the mind to what the same enthusiasm, enterprise and effort might achieve here. Alas...

Sunshine Week a shining example

It's Sunshine Week again in the US:

a national initiative to promote a dialogue about the importance of open government and freedom of information. Participants include news media, civic groups, libraries, nonprofits, schools and others interested in the public’s right to know. 

Terrific for them.

Having been there a year ago, here I am this time in Sydney green with envy at the leadership, enthusiasm, widespread participation and financial support from the Knight Foundation and others that makes this happen year after year.

And left to imagine how interesting some of these events listed for Washington will be as the week rolls on. 

Who, what, when, where and how could we ever make something like this happen here?

CIA accepts email FOI requests

Fair dinkum. Meanwhile Dr Hawke considers among other issues whether Australian intelligence agencies should continue to enjoy a blanket exemption from the Freedom of information Act. 

The heading "CIA enters 21st Century on FOIA submissions" reminds that Federal agencies here covered by the act have taken this step, and from some submissions to the Hawke review, may be regreting the application process has been simplified and made even easier via Righttoknow for example. But many state government agencies are still back in the stone age as we found from a quick look around a while ago.

South Australian Police still take the gold boulder- asking that you personally front up to a police station with your completed application form. Others such as NSW Roads and Maritime provide the convenient option of dropping your application into an office or dropping it in the mail. 

 

To be fair some NSW agencies such as Finance and Services moved into the 1990s in the last year or so, accepting an email application and EFT payment.

 

But there are plenty of others in NSW, SA and Western Australia still opening the stamped envelopes each morning, scanning the application before whacking it into the manila folder. And expecting the applicant has followed the guidance to pay the application fee-strictly cash, cheque or money order, thank you. (Memo to those of tender age: once upon a time, long before electronic payment there was something called a money order.....).

Australia shuns good company at OGP meeting in Brazil

You are known by the company you keep. For this reason Australia sensibly looks for a seat at the right international tables. But for some reason we weren't in Brazilia yesterday in any official capacity at least, when over 1,000 representatives from 55 member governments  and 200 civil society organisations got together for the first annual high-level meeting of the Open Government Partnership (OGP), an initiative launched in September 2011 by President Obama and Brazilian President Rousseff. 

The meeting was chaired by President Rousseff and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who spoke of the opportunity the OGP provided to

"set a new global standard for good governance and to strengthen a global ethos of transparency and accountability... we intend to do all we can to help make the Open Government Partnership a leader in ensuring that the 21^st century is an era of openness, transparency, accountability, freedom, democracy, and results for people everywhere."

47 countries have joined the partnership in the last eight months. Apart from President Rousseff and Secretary Clinton, President Kikwete of Tanzania, Prime Minister Gilauri of Georgia, UK Cabinet Minister Frances Maude, and dozens of senior government leaders from around the world thought it important enough to attend the Brazil meeting. Libya was represented. The UK and US are co-chairs for the next 12 months.

The Australian government talks the talk about the importance of open government but either has difficulties with the partnership concept not shared by those who have joined, or other more pressing priorities. Our reasons for not signing up are so far unexplained, although in response to my report that the word recently in Washington was we would not be joining, a spokesperson was quoted by itnews saying we continue to consider and consult- eight months on for heavens sake!

Australian ministers who should have an interest including Attorney General Roxon (on Q&A and elsewhere) and Foreign Minister Carr (on his first visit to Europe) obviously had other pressing matters requiring their attention, but Trade Minister Emerson has been in Latin America for the past week for other reasons, and in Brazilia days ago, but apparently with no time for this sort of stuff, and had moved on to Colombia by the time the meeting began.

More than a pity that we sit out international action on open government in the 21st century while the following participating countries give it a high priority and the cause a shot in the arm by being seen in this sort of good company. Australia and NZ could give the notably light Asia -Pacific region representation a lift:

(* denotes Steering Committee member):

Brazil*	Colombia	Italy	Peru
Indonesia*	Costa Rica	Jordan	Romania
Mexico*	Croatia	Kenya	Russia
Norway*	Czech Republic	Latvia	Serbia
Philippines*	Denmark	Liberia	Slovak Republic
South Africa*	Dominican Republic	Lithuania	South Korea
United Kingdom*	El Salvador	Macedonia	Spain
United States*	Estonia	Malta	Sweden
Albania	Georgia	Moldova	Tanzania
Armenia	Ghana	Mongolia	Trinidad and Tobago
Azerbaijan	Greece	Montenegro	Turkey
Bulgaria	Guatemala	Netherlands	Ukraine
Canada	Honduras	Panama	Uruguay
Chile	Israel	Paraguay

Australia and Open Government Partnership

Thanks to itnews for the news from the horse's mouth that Australia is still considering and consulting on this-as it has been saying for nine months or so. My source in Washington who told me we were out said that he got this from the Australian Embassy when he rang to seek clarification after hearing about Australia's position from other sources.

If we are luke-warm to cold on the idea of a commitment because we are already in good shape, I guess Mexico, the US and UK, all founding governments with reasonable records, might have said the same thing-but didn't.

 I'm a bit handicapped to contribute more as I'm on the way to Europe but two relevant posts from last year if you didn't see them: from September when I first raised our absence and this in October includes a link to Professor McMillan's response to questions asked at the time in Estimates by The Greens Senator Rhiannon. 

I'll be glad if my report turns out to be wrong-as I said in September, Australia should be proud to line up on this one.

Australia to sit out Open Government Partnership

We don't say no to Washington all that often but while there last week, I was told by someone following the initiative closely that Australia has decided not to join the Open Government Partnership, launched by President Obama in New York in September last year. Just what's the problem is unknown but I recall Australian Information Commissioner Professor John McMillan telling a Senate committee last year that  we had some questions concerning the initiative. Whatever, concerns haven't been enough to hold back the eight founding governments and 38 others participating who will meet in Brazil next month.

 I understand the UK will co-chair the initiative with the US for the ensuing 12 months. 

Who knows what our new Foreign Minister Bob Carr thinks about it all. If he made a speech during his 10 years as premier of NSW extolling the virtues of FOI, I missed it. In his time in that office even ministerial media releases didn't get posted on the web, media management and spin came ahead of other considerations, and the open government cause generally suffered from the lack of high level leadership and support. DFAT already has a tendency towards excessive secrecy so it's a nice fit on that score.

A pity as Australia has something of a positive record worth sharing in international company. As to which parts of the OGP Declaration trouble us, your guess is as good as mine:

Australia makes news at US National Freedom of Information Day Conference

But it wasn't for any great freedom of information accomplishment. On the contrary we together with other countries involved in negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership copped quite a serve over the lack of transparency.

Last Friday at the Sunshine Week conference I attended in Washington, Lori Wallach of Public Citizen Trade Watch, recently returned from observing the 11th round of negotiations in Melbourne on the TPP trade agreement spoke to her just published article  in the March edition of American Prospect. Wallach said "unprecedented secrecy" surrounds the draft texts under discussion, quoting former US trade official Gary Horlick as saying it "is the least transparent trade negotiation I have ever seen" in his 40 years in the game. Wallach contends the negotiation has been misbranded as "trade": the 26 proposed TPP chapters

 "include domestic policy on financial, health-care, energy, telecommunications, and other service-sector regulation; patents and copyrights; food and product standards; land use and natural resources; professional licensing and immigration; and government procurement."

Wallach said decisions are being taken without public access to any documents or details or, in the US case, input from members of Congress serving on key committees whose jurisdiction is directly implicated. And that the governments involved have ignored a global “release the texts” campaign led by unions and civil-society groups. However more than 600 business representatives serving as official U.S. trade advisers have full access to an array of draft texts and an inside role in the process. "The strategy is to squelch informed debate until a deal is signed and any alterations become difficult."

Wallach's talk prompted a look at other materials. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website confirms that it is no secret that the TPP will involve more than trade (emphasis added):

The Australian Government will pursue a TPP outcome that eliminates or at least substantially reduces barriers to trade and investment. The TPP is more than a traditional trade agreement; it will also deal with behind-the-border impediments to trade and investment.

This report from another observer at the Melbourne negotiations puts Australia up there leading on the confidentiality issue-and avoiding rather than answering questions:

The Australian chief negotiator opened the briefing with a statement of the chapters which had made progress during the round. Intellectual Property was not mentioned as one of these chapters, though market access, services, rules of origin and capacity building were amongst those specifically mentioned. He stated that there were more than 20 negotiating groups.

As usual, very few substantive questions were answered. Some procedural questions also went unanswered.

The first question came in the form of request for greater transparency, including the release of the text, in order to permit the general public to be part of the process. The Australian chief negotiator stated that the stakeholder forum provides the primary way for stakeholders to participate and it is common practice not to release texts during negotiations of free trade agreements. He suggested that releasing the text would not be feasible because "nothing is agreed until it is agreed."

A later question regarding the release of the text came when one stakeholder asked if the TPPA negotiating parties would consider a release after a composite text had been reached as is done at the WTO. The Australian chief negotiator repeated that in his view, the answer had already been clearly stated, that this is not the WTO and they would not release the text.

When asked whether all countries had finished tabling their IP text and whether the US specifically had tabled its text (marked as "placeholder" text in the prior leaks) on biologics, the length of the access window, internet retransmission and copyright limitations and exceptions, the Australian negotiator immediately responded that they would not release text. When pressed to answer simply whether specific text had been tabled or not, Barbara Weisel, US chief negotiator, did not clearly answer the question but seemed to indicate that such text had not been tabled yet. She noted that USTR is still consulting with stakeholders regarding some provisions, presumably on biologics and the length of the access window.

I don't know what relevant FOI activity has been undertaken. Participants have sought to head things off at the pass with this agreement on confidentiality to apply for four years, with NZ  acting as the organiser in chief:

First, all participants agree that the negotiating texts, proposals of each Government, accompanying explanatory material, emails related to the substance of the negotiations, and other information exchanged in the context of the negotiations, is provided and will be held in confidence, unless each participant involved in a communication subsequently agrees to its release. This means that the documents may be provided only to (1) government officials or (2) persons outside government who participate in that government’s domestic consultation process and who have a need to review or be advised of the information in these documents. Anyone given access to the documents will be alerted that they cannot share the documents with people not authorized to see them. All participants plan to hold these documents in confidence for four years after entry into force of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, or if no agreement enters into force, for four years after the last round of negotiations. Second, while the negotiating documents are confidential, each participant may mail, e-mail, fax, or discuss these documents over unsecured lines with the groups of people mentioned above (i.e., government officials and persons who participate in the domestic consultation process). The participants may also store these documents in a locked file cabinet or within a secured building; that is, the documents do not need to be stored in safes. Each participant can also create and store these documents on unclassified computer systems. Lastly, the participants will mark the documents they create in a manner that makes clear that the documents will be held in confidence.The policy underlying this approach is to maintain the confidentiality of documents, while at the same time allowing the participants to develop their negotiating positions and communicate internally and with each other. We look forward to your confirmation that you agree with this approach.

In answer to a question, Wallach said Peru's FOI law offers the best chance of some access to TPP documents and a court case there is underway.

Heavy hand on heavy Freedom of Information users

Australian Freedom of information reforms in 2008/2009 saw the acts in three jurisdictions incorporate vexatious applicant provisions. The Commonwealth (s 89L), and Queensland (s114) conferred powers on the information commissioner, and NSW (s 110 ) on the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (restraining a person making unmeritorious applications.) 

I'm not aware of any declarations to date.

A new and different approach to use of FOI in Illinois, according to The Republic:

Government bodies could declare someone a "recurrent requester" for filing more than 50 FOIA requests in a year, 15 in a month or seven in seven days. They could take 21 business days — it's five days for others — to answer. Media, not-for-profit organizations and academics are exempt. Opponents say it hampers taxpayers' right to get public information. Gov. Pat Quinn's office did not immediately respond to a question about whether he'll sign the legislation.

When I was in the US earlier this year, one prominent member of the Washington community that keeps an eye on such things told me Illinois and Massachusetts ranked dead last on the open government scale. (Update-more here.)

Any numbers for individual heavy users on the local scene?

President Obama open to open government community

As you do:

"(M)embers of the openness community today met with President Obama to discuss a range of transparency issues."

Well it wasn't that routine or unremarkable:

"The Oval Office meeting — during which the president was given an award for his work thus far in encouraging agencies to release information to the public — was the first time that longtime open government advocates in Washington recalled a sitting president meeting with them to discuss government transparency."

More about the meeting here.

Those who attended were Lucy A. Dalglish Executive Director Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch; Tom Blanton, executive director of The National Security Archive at George Washington University; Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight; and Patrice McDermott, director of OpenTheGovernment.org.

Dalglish, Blanton and McDemott were generous in slotting me in for a chat during my visit to Washington last month.

Who knows-if we had an identifiable openness community, prime ministers and premiers might also be interested in an occasional exchange of views?

We have sunshine, but no Sunshine Week

 Sunshine Week this week in the US, the annual national initiative led by the American Society of Newspaper Editors to promote a dialogue about the importance of open government and freedom of information. Participants include news media, civic groups, libraries, nonprofits, schools and others interested in the public's right to know. Here is a sample of the coverage and events.The Department of Justice got on board launching FOIA.gov with government wide data on FOI processing, including agencies with the biggest backlogs. The Knight Open Government Survey undertaken by the National Security Archives revealed a glass half full on implementation of President Obama's day one openness commitment and subsequent directive.

Would we had a philanthropist like the Knight Foundation to fund, and a coalition like the one behind Sunshine Week to support, a similar initiative here.

Open government

The Office of Australian Information Commissioner is hosting a blog from 8 February to discuss draft principles and issues concerning open government information. Before leaving Australia I said the Commissioner's issues paper setting out ten draft principles  sounded pretty good to me. But not only should every agency have a senior information champion, the agency should have a plan on what it will do to promote and achieve more open access to information. And the Commissioner should establish how performance will be measured.

I'm in Florida at the moment, regarded by some who know as the best US jurisdiction when it comes to open government under Governor Charlie Crist who stood down last November but with an element of uncertainty about how things will go in the new regime headed by Rick Scott. They put Illinois and Massachusetts at the other end of the scale. And the Obama administration is said to talk a good game but results are slow in coming.

WikiLeaks FAQs

Two more useful bits on WikiLeaks related issues as seen from here: this set of FAQs published by OpenThe Government.org, and POGO"s Fact Sheet on the Federal whistleblower legislation as at December, now shrouded in uncertainty/gloom as a result of recent developments

Australians in Washington

Well I'm here, but that's neither here nor there. So is Pat Farmer the ultra-marathon runner and former federal parliamentarian who has received a little coverage as he charges around Washington, acclimatising for his run from pole to pole.

But the big Australian name in town is Julian Assange who featured on CBS Sixty Minutes on Sunday, and the same day was the subject of a long article by Bill Keller, the paper's Executive Editor, in The New York Times Magazine. They provided sharp contrasts.

US and Australian law regarding publication of government secrets

Attorney General McClelland on 17 December announced the Australian Federal Police had not identified any criminal offences regarding WikiLeaks "where Australia has jurisdiction" and added:

“The Government remains extremely concerned about the unauthorised and irresponsible distribution of classified material.”

We are likely to see that concern flavour discussion and debate next year on a range of issues: open government in all its dimensions, the Government's response to the ALRC report on secrecy provisions in Commonwealth laws, shield laws for journalists, whistleblower protection, and perhaps even government copyright.

The leaks of course were of US government documents although the content of some reveal information passed on to US embassy officers in Canberra by public servants in government agencies including intelligence agencies. Whether WikiLeaks/Assange or anyone else has committed an offence under US law by publishing classified materials remains to be seen.  Secrecy News has facilitated access to this Congressional Research Service memo on the Wikileaks controversy, “Criminal Prohibitions on the Publication of Classified Defense Information” dated December 6. The summary states:

This report identifies some criminal statutes that may apply [to dissemination of classified documents], but notes that these have been used almost exclusively to prosecute individuals with access to classified information (and a corresponding obligation to protect it) who make it available to foreign agents, or to foreign agents who obtain classified information unlawfully while present in the United States. Leaks of classified information to the press have only rarely been punished as crimes, and we are aware of no case in which a publisher of information obtained through unauthorized disclosure by a government employee has been prosecuted for publishing it. There may be First Amendment implications that would make such a prosecution difficult, not to mention political ramifications based on concerns about government censorship.

There is a good discussion about the US legal issues in this NPR On the Media interview with University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone including Senator Lieberman's move to introduce the SHIELD Act- Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination.

If the leak had been here and of Australian documents covering ground similar to some of that published, s 79 of the Crimes Act and s 91.1 of the Criminal Code (Cth) (espionage) might apply to publication if it occurred within Australian jurisdiction. Philip Dorling who is doing the hard slog for Fairfax papers on the released cables relevant to Australia is familiar with the law. Two years ago he had the police knocking on the door  after he wrote an article in the Canberra Times about the Defence Intelligence Organisation.

Leaking and publishing are two different things

Australia's leading academic on whistleblower protection Professor A J Brown of Griffith University Law School,gave the keynote address to the Annual General Meeting of Transparency International Australia, in Sydney tonight.

 Professor Brown said:

"Trying to target and control Julian Assange is not likely to be an effective response to these leaks, in either the short or long term... “The conflict over Wikileaks is at risk of turning into a war between a naive but powerful vision of global cyber-liberty, and the “1984” nightmare of an internet subject to massive government regulation and control.” “This is not a war that either side can ever win.”

Professor Brown said there was a need for a more considered response from governments about how they will improve their whistleblowing systems so that genuine wrongdoing can be disclosed when needed by government insiders – including through the media and internet. 

“Creating a martyr out of Julian Assange – as advocated by a range of politicians – is unfortunately typical of the ‘shoot the messenger’ attitude that has often prevented decisionmakers from appreciating how best to respond to whistleblowing.” “It also distracts from the very important issue of developing effective regimes for regulating the responsibilities of publishers and journalists in respect of both ‘leaks’ and public interest disclosures.”

As I see it Assange is not a whistleblower as far as we know the story so far. He publishes,with relish, material leaked to him. Few suggest he's done anything more, although Prime Minister Gillard initially described the WikiLeaks website as "illegal" and subsequently toned this down to "grossly irresponsible." And Attorney General McClelland is still going on about possible breaches of someone's law.

500 Freedom of Information applications behind top science journalism award

The only Australian angle on this is that the Walkley Award nominees who know their Freedom of Information law have a lot in common with Charles Duhigg of the New York Times. Duhigg is the winner of the  2010 American Association for the Advancement of Science Kavli Science Journalism large newspaper award for his "Toxic Waters" series, an investigation into the quality of American waters and the enforcement of environmental laws.This from First Science:

"As part of his reporting, Duhigg reviewed hundreds of scientific papers and spoke with dozens of researchers. He filed more than 500 Freedom of Information Act requests, built his own database, and ran thousands of queries to search for patterns in the data." 

That's worth some sort of FOI award as well!

Apart from this recognition, the Toxic Waters series has received The Scripps Howard National Journalism Award, the Investigative Reporters and Editors’ Medal, the National Academies’ reporting award, the investigative reporting award from the Society of Environmental Journalists, the 2009 Science in Society Journalism Award, as well as recognition from the Society of Professional Journalists, the Deadline Awards, the Society of American Business Editors and Writers, the Loeb Awards, and the John B. Oakes Awards at Columbia University.

I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who has had success or failure in seeking access to data held in databases under Australian freedom of information laws.

Different strokes..

In writing about access issues concerning performance review information earlier in the week, I was bissfully unaware that in Illinois this is a current bone of contention between the state legislature and Governor Pat Quinn. A  bill to exempt personnel evaluations of all government employees from public scrutiny under the Freedom of Information Act was passed earlier in the year. The Governor vetoed the bill, exempting municipal and state police evaluations, but leaving others open to FOI scrutiny. Moves are underway to attempt to override the veto to restore the blanket exemptions. Some in the media thunder:

To assert that members of the public have no right to any information pertaining to personnel evaluations is contrary to the principle of open government. Some unionized state employees, for example, were guaranteed they wouldn’t be laid off for at least two years. The notion that we shouldn’t be able to see how they’re performing their jobs to assess the wisdom of this agreement is outrageous.

Update: thundering didn't help- both houses voted to overturn the veto.

Afghanistan papers put Wikileaks, maybe more, centre stage

Will we see take-up here of the merits of the war in an election campaign dubbed last week as "the Battle of the Bland"? Given Australia's support, heightened by the fact 17 Australian soldiers have been killed, six in a little over a month and that Julian Assange of Wikileaks is one of our own, the leak of 75000 classified Afghanistan documents (with more to come) should mean Afghanistan receives more attention during the  campaign than what we have had so far - a virtual one line unity ticket that "we're there to see the mission" and "the just cause" through. Political leaders here are probably just relieved Assange has moved off home turf to a bigger canvas. And will an interest in whistleblowing generally heighten awareness of the issue of a pardon for Allan Kessing - including some questions of Transport Minister Albanese - in light of the Director of Public Prosecutions advice against, as reported by Chris Merritt in The Australian last Friday?