First report card on operation of NSW GIPA act

It's taken a while-three years in fact-but the NSW Information Commissioner's report on the operation of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, the first since commencement, has been tabled in Parliament and is available here.  

The current commissioner Elizabeth Tydd took up the post earlier this year and clearly attached a priority to compliance-finally-with this mandatory annual reporting requirement.

I'm yet to have a close look but the Commissioner reports that three years of information about agency performance

"..confirms the Act is achieving its goal of improving the general approach of decision makers in providing timely and proactive access to information, giving the citizens of NSW confidence in Government decision making. The report indicates that the strategic intent of the Act is largely being met with most agencies complying with the Act’s requirements.

• consistent and credible levels of information release
• high levels of timeliness
• increasing number of valid applications
• the application of public interest considerations
• greater release of information through agency reviews."

The  high level snapshot reveals:

• 50,318 applications were lodged across the five sectors
• 82% of those applications were lodged with government agencies, state owned corporations or Ministers
• 17% of the applications were lodged with NSW councils 
• 61% of the applications lodged with government are attributed to three agencies: Police (36%) RMS (15%) and WorkCover (10%)
• 87% of decisions made by agencies were processed within the statutory time frame
• There is a positive trend with 2,245 invalid applications received in 2010 – 2011 reduced to 1,699 in 2012 – 2013.

 

C20 Global Summit this week in Melbourne.

The C20 Global Summit will take place in Melbourne this Friday and Saturday so a big crowd can be expected to chew over the four key policy themes: inclusive growth and employment; infrastructure; climate and sustainability, and governance. Position papers on each topic are here.

I'm on a panel on Friday on Open Government to be chaired by Greg Thompson, Executive Director International, Transparency International Australia and Member C20 Australia Steering Committee. Others panelists are

• Natalia Soebagio – Chair, Executive Board Transparency International Indonesia
• Martin Tisne – Director of Policy, Omidyar Network (major funder of the Open Government Partnership to the tune of $1.48 million)
• Eloise Todd – Advocacy Director, ONE International.

Hope to catch you if you are there.

Victoria rejigs privacy law

An important step forward on legislating for protective security standards but national harmonisation of privacy principles is drifting even further over the horizon.

Victorian Attorney General Robert Clark introduced the long awaited Privacy and Data Protection Bill in Parliament last week.

The Bill merges the existing roles of Privacy Commissioner and the Commissioner for Law Enforcement Data Security to create a single Commissioner for Privacy and Data Protection with responsibility for the oversight of the privacy and data protection regime in Victoria. The Privacy and Data Protection Bill 2014 also addresses a number of the data security issues identified by the Victorian Auditor-General in his 2009 Report on Maintaining the Integrity and Confidentiality of Personal Information, including measures to ensure that government handles personal information securely and consistently.
The Bill provides for the development of a new protective data security framework for the Victorian Government. The Commissioner for Privacy and Data Protection will be responsible for issuing protective security standards as part of the framework.
The Commissioner will also develop guidelines to assist Government agencies to develop plans and help ensure changes to current processes are implemented smoothly.
The framework will include protective data security standards, protective data security plans prepared by public sector bodies to implement the standards, and specific law enforcement data security standards.
The Bill provides for departments and agencies to seek a determination about whether a particular use of personal information that it holds is authorised or required by law.
The Bill will also allow public sector organisations to seek approval for arrangements allowing them to handle or share personal information in ways that vary the application of certain information privacy principles, if that use of the information is clearly in the public interest.
“These reforms enhance privacy protections for individuals while giving public sector agencies greater clarity about the appropriate use of personal information,” Mr Clark said.

The Bill also re-enacts key provisions of the Information Privacy Act, including the Information Privacy Principles. Those principles are based on what were the IPPs in the Commonwealth Privacy Act, substantially changed along with other provisions such as the definition of personal information with effect from 12 March 2014.

Six years ago the Australian Law Reform Commission recommended that the principles it put forward for new Federal legislation "also be applied to state and territory government agencies through an intergovernmental cooperative scheme—so that the same principles and protections apply across Australia no matter what kind of agency or organisation is handling the information." 

In 2009 then minister Ludwig in announcing the Phase 1 Federal government response to the ALRC report undertook to

"work with the states and territories to harmonise privacy law across the nation. The first stage response will create a platform from which the Government can pursue national harmonisation through discussion with the states and territories. Ultimately, the aim will be a consistent set of privacy standards for the Commonwealth, state and territory public sectors, as well as the private sector. The Federal Government will be looking to the states and territories to repeal privacy laws including health privacy laws that apply to the private sector. Additional national consistency issues will be considered in the second stage response."

Harmonise? National consistency? Not in 2014 or anytime soon if Victoria is any indication.

Bruce Arnold has done the spadework on the provisions of the bill.

Victoria proposes to improve FOI commissioner model not abolish it

Following a mention here a few weeks ago of the Victorian government's plans, the Freedom of Information and Victorian Inspectorate Acts Amendment Bill 2014 was introduced into Parliament last week. 

The main FOI purpose as outlined in the Explanatory Memorandum is to allow for the appointment of Assistant Freedom of Information Commissioners; to provide greater guidance in relation to time limits and notification requirements by, and to, the Freedom of Information Commissioner; facilitate the effective and informal resolution of reviews and complaints; and ensure that many of the functions of the Freedom of Information Commissioner may be undertaken by, or delegated to, members of staff.

The Attorney General said two assistant commissioners would be appointed with an additional allocation of funds for this purpose.

(The Office of Australian Information Commissioner didn't get anywhere with requests for additional funding to cope with similar high demand for FOI review work. Last year the Office raised with the Hawke Review as efficiency measures some of the matters addressed in the Victorian legislation including allowing for delegation of review and complaint handling functions and powers to remit a matter to an agency or minister for reconsideration. Dr Hawke made some recommendations along these lines. The government however said not a word in response before announcing plans to abolish the OAIC in the name of 'efficiency.' Other options to make the commissioner model work more efficiently and effectively don't appear to have received any consideration.)

This analysis of the provisions by Bruce Arnold captures the essence of the proposed changes. 

That the Commissioner is limited to recommendatory rather than determinative powers in concluding review of an agency decision, to my mind, continues to be a weakness in the scheme. 

Victoria continues to sidestep comprehensive FOI reform.

As Professor Johan Lidberg of Monash University said

“Victorian Freedom of Information is one of the poorest functioning access to information laws in the country,” Mr Lidberg said. “It’s slow, cumbersome and expensive to use.”

You can add very dated to that.The 1983 act shows the finest thinking of the nineteen seventies and eighties.

One of these days.... 

        

Prime Minister's travels: missed opportunities galore

What Prime Minister Abbott and President Hollande talked about in their one on one in Paris is hard to find other than what is covered in this statement issued by President Hollande.  But it seems it didn't extend to a bond we could share through common membership of the Open Government Partnership. France is an enthusiastic new joiner. The Abbott government hasn't decided to join or not join.

In Ottawa, the Prime Minister said "No two countries on earth are so similar. No two countries on earth are more like-minded." Again no mention of standing shoulder to shoulder with Canada for transparency, accountability, open government and citizen participation which would be the case if we committed to the OGP. Canada is a foundation member.

In Washington President Obama said he and Prime Minister Abbott "had the opportunity this morning to discuss a wide range of issues, many of them focused on the importance of the Asia Pacific region." Later, that the US and Australia "share foundational values about liberal democracies and human rights, and a world view that’s governed by international law and norms." (Addendum-many other shared viewpoints outlined in their joint op-ed in the LA Times.) 

But no mention of how we together might pursue these interests through the OGP, an international initiative that extends to 63 countries and led initially by the US. And how such action on Australia's part would be a welcome response to this recent call by President Yudhoyono for regional support for the OGP:

We want to see more countries from our region to join this movement, so that our voice can be sufficiently represented in the OGP. Asia-Pacific participation is important because OGP’s greatest strength lies in its facilitation of the exchange of ideas, learning, and experiences on open and good governance... I believe our region must play a critical role in promoting OGP. Asia-Pacific remains one of the most dynamic regions in the world..

So zilch from the Abbott-Yudhoyono, Abbott-Hollande, Abbott-Harper or Abbott-Obama talks along the lines of the fulsome commitment to the OGP reflected in the Obama-Harper-Nieto talks in February 2014.

Perhaps not surprising the Australian side had nothing to say about the OGP on this visit to Indonesia, France, Canada and the US, all members, given the admission by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade recently that our foreign policy experts would only take an active interest in the international dimensions of the OGP.... if we were a member.

Alas....

 

SA Ombudsman's FOI wisdom should travel beyond state borders

ABC

The report (pdf) by South Australian Ombudsman Richard Bingham tabled in Parliament last week after a comprehensive review of how 12 government agencies manage their responsibilities under the Freedom of information Act identifies a whole raft of problems and issues that should attract the attention of the SA government. More on that in a moment.

The Ombudsman also raises issues relevant elsewhere. 

For example just as the Federal Government proposes to abolish the Office of Australian Information Commissioner which among other negative impacts on transparency and open government, will remove the independent oversight body, the 'champion' of open government, and wipe from the Federal Government statute book non litiguous merits review of FOI decisions, the Ombudsman recommends for SA: 

an independent oversight body with investigation, audit and recommendatory powers to issue FOI guidelines, ensure public awareness, provide advice and conduct training, deal with complaints, monitor and audit agency performance, conduct merit reviews with determinative powers, recommend reforms and report to Parliament.

"This body should also be responsible for the oversight of state privacy policies and legislation..", an aspect of the model the Federal Government plans to dismantle.

The Ombudsman concludes (along with just about every other review of FOI that has taken place around the country) that the absence of a dedicated independent ‘champion’ is a significant shortcoming in the FOI framework. 

The Federal Government is yet to explain its counter intuitive decision to abolish the function to deliver the transparent and accountable government to which it claims to be committed.

 South Australia and FOI shortcomings

 The Ombudsman highlights:

• the "disconnect between stated government policy regarding proactive disclosure in the digital age and agency approaches to  information disclosure";

• "the Act is outdated and its processes belong to pre electronic times";

• "agencies’ implementation of the Act is wanting, and demonstrates a lack of understanding or commitment to the democratic principles which underpin the Act.";

• "evidence provided to the audit strongly suggests that ministerial or political interference" is brought to bear in decision making and "FOI officers may have been pressured to change their determinations in particular instances"; (See these observations last year about this issue on a broader scale.)

• agency chief executives are not providing appropriate leadership on FOI and open government.

The Ombudsman recommends many changes to the act including a clear objects section weighted in favour of disclosure, reducing the number of exemption provisions, removing the 'Howard factors' from the public interest calculus, and the introduction of offence provisions. 

Richard Bingham is long on experience  with the way agencies go about their FOI business, in Tasmania before SA since 2009. His counsel should be welcomed and provide the impetus for change in SA which, along with Victoria and WA sat out the FOI reform period in 2008-2010. Those serious about transparency and accountability in Canberra in particular (there have to be some?) but also in the other states and territories should heed his wisdom. as well.

DFAT waiting for Finance to ring before opening the OGP file.

 Silly old duffer!

Here I've been rabbiting on for three years about Australia stepping up to join the Open Government Partnership, thinking that apart from the value we would derive from a civil society-government partnership to improve transparency accountability and public participation in Australia, that there were good foreign policy reasons why we should stand with (currently) 63 other countries who share this commitment.

I wasn't put off when it emerged that Secretary of State Clinton received no response to her invitation in August 2011 to then Foreign Minister Rudd to join; that then minister Brendan O'Connor rejected an AGD recommendation that Australia announce its intention to join in October 2011 when President Obama visited, and DFAT apparently was nowhere to be seen or heard; or when DFAT took 10 weeks last year to tell me it had no document that listed the pros and cons of Australia joining.

No I was simply heartened when then Foreign Minister Carr said he agreed in principle that Australia should join, when Secretary Varghese told Senator Faulkner that he would ensure the department went into meetings of officials to get the membership issue sorted quickly, and when then Attorney General Dreyfus made the announcement of our intention to join in May last year.

True I've been worried since about silence and disappointed with the 'clarification' of Australia's position by Minister for Finance Cormann in Estimates that "we have not decided yet on whether we will or will not proceed with that intention to join..."

But I'd thought as the Prime Minister headed to Indonesia, France, Canada and the US - all members of the OGP and Indonesia the current lead co-chair - that DFAT would ensure there was something in the briefing book about this, given that President SBY at a conference a month ago to which PM Abbott was invited but couldn't attend called on others in the Asia Pacific to join, and Presidents Obama and Harper of Canada put their names to a statement of support for the OGP when they met earlier this year.

DFAT-well at least when I was there for 14 years a long time ago- was good at linking the foreign and domestic policy dots, I thought.

Wishful or dated thinking as it turns out. DFAT only thinks about the international dimensions once we decide to join!

Senate Estimates
Senator Faulkner in Estimates for Department of Foreign affairs and Trade last week asked  "how DFAT is engaging on this OGP issue, which obviously has foreign policy implications." 

DFAT Secretary Varghese flicked it to Ms Katrina Cooper, First Assistant Secretary, Legal Division: 

Ms Cooper:... it is being handled by the section which takes care of freedom of information and privacy.(Comment: With all due respect hardly likely to have policy heft or influence on an international organisation issue)...We are standing by waiting to see where the process heads now. Obviously we are still waiting to see whether or not we will join the OPG and, if we do, we will be engaged....
 Senator Faulkner:....could I ask, Mr Varghese, if there are any resources at all in DFAT being used to look at the international policy, the foreign policy aspects of the OGP. The OGP is something that has developed a head of steam in the international community—I think that is a fair thing to say. My question to you just goes to whether DFAT has got any engagement at all on the international policy issues.  
Mr Varghese : I would defer to Ms Cooper, if she is able to assist on that. It is not something I have spent time on personally...  
Ms Cooper : Senator, we are not engaging in any separate process as an agency. We are engaging with other agencies and through the lead agency on this process. 
Senator FAULKNER: So that means you have 60-odd nations having a major international conference on Australia's doorstep—it does not matter where it is, but it is our near neighbour with whom we have such a very important relationship—in Bali. Our prime minister is invited to it. We have, as you would know, Mr Varghese, from previous evidence at this estimates committee, seen the Secretary of State of the US encouraging Australia's involvement. We have had a senior minister in the UK government doing the same. I am surprised that those elements effectively receive no focus at all from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. So here we have a movement that appears to be growing in strength in the international community—and that is the only point I am making—but no assessment or analysis—except involvement is not a core issue for your department. Involvement and being the lead agency belongs to another department—the Department of Finance. It is those international elements that I am referring to. And I would have thought within DFAT those sorts of assessments would be made as a matter of course, but you are assuring me that is not the case? 
Mr Varghese : Yes, I suppose it is a bit chicken and egg. If we were a member of the Open Government Partnership then obviously we would be taking a much more active interest in its international dimensions. You could equally argue that in order to assess whether and when to become a member we should be au fait with the international dimensions.

Well at least the questioning prompted some reflection by the Secretary on DFAT's contribution to a big hole in the policy development process.

Three years of water under the bridge, but it is never too late. Secretary, don't wait for Finance to call. There are foreign policy issues relevant in making up our minds to join. Get a seat at the table and put someone with some vision in the chair.

We missed the opportunity to do something on this in Indonesia. 

The Prime Minister is in Canada and the US this week... ah dreaming again.

The relevant extract from the transcript follows including questioning about the PM's invitation to the Bali conference

Parallel 'open government' worlds on display

Attorney General Brandis, Senate Estimates:"The government is committed to transparency and openness.." 

(Addendum: For completeness,from Coalition Election Policy 2013:
"Encouraging Australians to Work Together: “The Coalition will do the right thing for Australia and deliver a strong, stable, accountable government that puts the national interest first and delivers a better future for all Australians. We will restore accountability and improve transparency measures to be more accountable to you. We will govern for all Australians, not favour any particular group. We’re all in this together and we’ll encourage all Australians to work together..”)

Emeritus Professor) Rodney Tiffen Inside Story: "The Abbott government's war on transparency." (Even this long list of valid reasons for concern isn't the complete picture.The planned abolition of the Office of Australian Information Commissioner not only will impact on FOI merit review as mentioned, it will remove the independent monitor and open government leadership functions from the picture as culture change veers sharply back in the wrong direction.Then there's the 'no we haven't decided to join or withdraw the Labor government's notice of intention to join' the Open Government Partnership; the government's 'poor' record in responding to Senate orders to produce documents according to the polite people who produce the Senate Procedural Information Bulletin even if things have now taken a turn for the better; and plenty of other inventive/creative FOI knockbacks to add to the couple cited in this article, a number from the Attorney General's Department set to become from 1 January the lead agency for 'guidance' on the interpretation and application of the act.)

Oh dear....

moves to reduce public transparency and public knowledge - See more at: http://inside.org.au/the-abbott-governments-war-on-transparency/#sthash.bZqtzx1A.dpuf

of decisions that mean public scrutiny of its policies and their implementation is more difficult. - See more at: http://inside.org.au/the-abbott-governments-war-on-transparency/#sthash.STSYw73M.dpuf

the government has made a series of decisions that mean public scrutiny of its policies and their implementation is more difficult. - See more at: http://inside.org.au/the-abbott-governments-war-on-transparency/#sthash.STSYw73M.dpuf

the government has made a series of decisions that mean public scrutiny of its policies and their implementation is more difficult. - See more at: http://inside.org.au/the-abbott-governments-war-on-transparency/#sthash.STSYw73M.dpuf

The time and cost equation for AAT review of FOI matters

Jonathon Holmes in The Age yesterday bought the line that merits review by the AAT will help journalists obtain FOI access, in the words of ABC FOI Editor Michael McKinnon, more quickly, and more fairly. 

"We’re journalists, not historians. We need to know now” said McKinnon in drawing attention to the long and unacceptable delay in FOI review matters at the OAIC.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal timeline may prove better than some achieved by the underfunded OAIC. After all $1.8m over four years, the sort of money the OAIC never saw, will be transferred to the Tribunal to assist with the processing of FOI reviews.

Will the "need to know now" cause get a boost in the coming new/old era with agencies reaching the correct decision more often and with fulsome embrace of spirit and intent of the legislation? You're more of an optimist than me if you think so given the absence of an FOI champion to maintain the effort to move culture change in the right direction, something that disappears with the abolition of the OAIC from 1 January 2015, and with AGD providing 'guidance' on the interpretation of the act.

 With a long or short queue, AAT processes aren't likely to be speedy in any event.

According to the AAT's 2012-13 Annual Report (a period when it had a limited FOI role) the tribunal's overall caseload performance target was 85% of matters to have their first conference within 13 weeks, and 60% of matters to progress to hearing within 40 weeks. (Table 3.8) 

The performance measures in the 2014--15 Portfolio Budget Statement are 75% of applications finalised by the AAT within 12 months of lodgement, 80% of matters finalised without a hearing.

Then there's the cost. According to the AAT in 2012-13 the cost (to the taxpayer) per matter that went all the way to an AAT decision was $16, 641.

The costs incurred in an AAT FOI review by the applicant who will be up for $816 (and due to rise by CPI on 1 July) for starters from 1 January, and the government agency involved in a matter is unknown.

 But some information about AAT costs generally is contained in the Draft Productivity Commission Report on Access to Justice. The mean cost to a party that brought proceedings regarding workplace compensation was just under $20,000 (median around $15 000). On the other side according to Comcare its average costs per case were $15,500 when matters were withdrawn, $23 000 when matters were resolved by consent, and $48,000 in matters that went to hearing.

Halve, quarter it for FOI if you like.

But  in time and cost the new FOI 'efficiencies' much loved by Attorney General Brandis are going to take a while for those who 'need to know now' or give or take in six months or so, and to cost the taxpayer and the citizen a pretty penny as well.

Prime Minister's travels: missed opportunity No 1

Indonesia:

Prime Minister Abbott Joint Press Statements 4 June:

I want to congratulate Bapak President Yudhoyono for the leadership that he has shown - not just here in Indonesia, but in this region and in the wider world over the past decade. President Yudhoyono has been one of the senior statesmen – perhaps the senior statesman – of ASEAN and has helped to make ASEAN strong and more influential in the councils of the world. I want to stress that a strong ASEAN is important to our region; it’s very important to Australia...Finally, may I say that when President Yudhoyono leaves office, Indonesia will have lost a statesman and Australia will have lost a friend....President Yudhoyono has been a great President and a good friend to Australia. I believe that when the history of Indonesia is written, the Yudhoyono presidency will be a watershed - marked by peace abroad, prosperity at home, the consolidation of democracy and the strengthening of national unity.

The missed opportunity (my words):

A sign of your commitment to democracy and your standing as a leader is evident in the key role Indonesia as the current lead co chair has played in the Open Government Partnership   The OGP now includes 63 countries committed to open, transparent and accountable government and to increased citizen participation. I very much regret that I was unable to join you in Bali recently for the first Asia Pacific Regional Conference. As you said on that occasion, other countries in the region should stand with Indonesia in promoting the OGP particularly in this dynamic region. I am pleased to announce today that Australia will proceed forthwith to join you and other partnership members in this important work.

So, onto France.

OAIC, a casualty in the name of efficiency, or set to fail: you choose.

Plenty of futile back and forward between Attorney General Brandis and Senators Singh and Rhiannon during Senate Estimates for the Attorney General's portfolio left little time for scrutiny of the decision to abolish the Office of Australian Information Commissioner in the name of 'efficiency.' 

When it comes to that however it's a matter of blind faith (and I'm not one of the faithful) when the Attorney General asserts:

"The government is committed to transparency and openness and these measures serve those objectives. The budget measures have been designed and crafted to ensure that the transparency and openness of the system remains but that the system can be administered more efficiently."

I'll leave you to pick through the extract from the transcript below, which will surely test your mettle, noting tidbits such as 23 of the current OAIC 63.3 staff  will go as the rest are reassigned (I seem to recall the estimate of what would be required before the Office opened for business was 100?) ; Privacy Commissioner Pilgrim stands by earlier support for mandatory serious data breach notification legislation; and a single focus one sided discussion about FOI costs and charges, as per usual based entirely on agency estimates with no regard to the waste and inefficiencies in the way many chose to handle this function.

Starved to death?
In contrast there is a lot more insight than you'll find in the Hansard in the opinion piece by Emeritus Professor Richard Mulgan of the ANU in The Canberra Times, on Tuesday: "How the FoI watchdog was starved to death. The Information Commissioner was set up to fail: denied the resources it needed to do its job." 

We share a fair bit of common ground but wouldn't want you for that reason to miss these extracts (emphasis added)

... the budget papers say that ''simplifying and streamlining'' FOI review processes by transferring them from the OAIC to the AAT ''will improve efficiencies and reduce the burden on FOI applicants''. There is no mention of the fact that external reviews will now cost over $800 instead of being free. Certainly, if re-imposing a significant fee leads, as it must, to a substantial reduction in the number of appeals, those who can afford to seek a review can expect a faster, more efficient service. For this reason, the changes have been welcomed by representatives of media businesses, which have chafed at the increasing delays caused by the flood of less well-off appellants. But it is a deceitful sophistry to describe improved service caused by pricing out most would-be applicants as ''reducing the burden'' on applicants.

If the government had been sincere in its aim to simplify service while minimising burdens on the public, it could have adopted other reforms canvassed by Hawke, such as abolishing the second tier of appeal to the AAT, leaving the OAIC as the sole avenue of external review while imposing a small application fee..

.. ...The position of information commissioner was established in the context of the digital revolution, which has transformed the collection and dissemination of government data. One of the commissioner's main statutory functions was to report on ''the collection, use, disclosure, management, administration or storage of, or accessibility to, information held by the government''. As part of this responsibility, the OAIC has concentrated on issues of transparency and accessibility, particularly through government websites. In a number of reports and policy statements, it has stressed the values of open government and sought to encourage a culture of proactive disclosure, whereby agencies take the initiative in publishing the types of information and data that they would be willing to release under FOI...

In trying to fulfil this mission, the Information Commissioner has faced strong institutional headwinds. With a few notable exceptions, ministers and bureaucrats remain stubbornly attached to a culture of secrecy and confidentiality. The digital revolution and the internet may have greatly facilitated the mechanics of government transparency. But they have also spawned the continuous media cycle and the premium on government management of information. Agency compliance with the new information policies has often been perfunctory and tokenistic. Even so, as statutory champions of open government, the Information Commissioner and his office have at least flown the flag for greater government transparency. That they have not been able to achieve major cultural change within the bureaucracy is hardly surprising, given their modest resources, the absence of strong political backing, and their relatively brief existence. But if opponents of open government are happy to see the office abolished, that in itself may be some testimony to its effectiveness.

Senate Estimates extracts here.

Prime Minister's travels: sign up to OGP for an easy announcable all hosts will welcome

The Prime Minister leaves tomorrow for visits to Indonesia, France (First World War  commemoration) Canada and the USA. British Prime Minister Cameron is sure to be at events in France as well.

The briefing books have been done and dusted, and behind the scenes discussions have already taken place to sort out what leaders want to say has been accomplished during meetings.

 But has anyone joined these dots for an 'announcable' that all the PM's hosts would welcome? 

The Prime Minister in this Media Release, issued before the announcement of the visit to Indonesia, spoke of the United States, Canada and France as long standing friends of Australia who "have always shared a commitment to democracy, to enterprise and to people’s right to be free."

That commitment is one we share with Indonesia as well.

Indonesia is lead co-chair of the Open Government Partnership. France has announced its intention to join. The UK and US  are both founding members and former co-chairs and Canada is also a member.

The Prime Minister only weeks ago declined an invitation from President Yudhoyono to attend OGP meetings in Bali. Other Australian ministers invited did not attend. A Finance official attended as an observer.

Opening the Asia Pacific Regional Conference President Yudhoyono, as reported in The Jakarta Post said

 Indonesia encourages Asia-Pacific countries to join the Open Government Partnership (OGP), a movement that is aimed at promoting openness, accountability and transparency to establish an effective government. “Only 10 Asia Pacific countries are OGP members. We want more countries to join with this movement so that our voices can be represented well via the OGP,”...The President said the role of the OGP, especially in Asia Pacific, was crucial as it wielded influencing power to facilitate the sharing of ideas, expertise and lessons learned on the issue of government transparency. “I believe this region is crucial to promoting the OGP. I’m sure Asia Pacific can be a global growth machine. Together, we declare an Asia Pacific that is prosperous, stable, dynamic, inclusive and oriented to the future,” said Yudhoyono.

Finance Minister Cormann last week said the government had not yet decided to join the OGP. Nor had it decided to withdraw the previous government's notice of intention to join.

An announcement this week that Australia will join the OGP would clearly be welcomed by the Indonesian Government.

And by France, the UK, Canada and the US whose leaders the Prime Minister meets later in the week.

Hopefully we might see something along these lines during the PM's travels:

 The Joint Statement issued in February by President Obama,Canadian Prime Minister Harper (and President Pena Nieto of Mexico) included a commitment to support the OGP, transparency and open government and to promote democracy, human rights and respect for international law throughout the world.

In September 2013 following a meeting with Prime Minister Cameron, New Zealand Prime Minister John Key announced that at "the request of the UK, New Zealand will formally express its intention to join the Open Government Partnership.
<

OAIC to be scrapped, Victorian scheme to be bolstered

Go figure.

The Federal Government plans to scrap the whole idea of non-litigious merits review after a three year experiment with an underfunded scheme and in the absence of a comprehensive review.

Fairfax reports Victoria is to provide additional staff for FOI Commissioner assigning two assistant commissioners to help. "Several staff will also be seconded from the Justice Department to create an education program for the public sector, which collectively receives more than 33,000 FOI requests a year. Attorney-General Robert Clark said the changes would strengthen the role of the FOI commissioner, a reform he said ''Labor refused to do in their entire 11 years in office.'' 

No mention there of the inefficiencies from a multi- tier review process that Attorney General Brandis cites as justifying the decision to abolish the OAIC. 

The Victorian scheme does have its shortcomings and this latest announcement won't address them all but it's not for the scrap heap Canberra plans to establish.

Australia ends confusion about OGP: firmly on the fence, thank you.

Minister for Finance Cormann in Senate Estimates last week cleared up any lingering uncertainty about Australia's current position regarding the Open Government Partnership. 

Australia hasn't joined, and hasn't made a decision to join or not join.

To be in this position almost three years after the initial invitation puts us out of step with more than sixty other countries that have signed on, including from the G 20 that we chair this year, the US, Brazil, UK, Indonesia and Mexico ( who have all played OGP leadership roles), Argentina Canada, France, Italy, Korea, South Africa and Turkey. That's before we get to Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, NZ, Sweden, the Philippines and plenty of African and South American countries. Others that we encourage along the path to good governance including Myanmar and PNG are showing an interest as well. 

Of the G7 countries that endorsed the Open Data Charter in 2013 calling for government data sets to be open by default, only Germany and Japan aren't currently OGP members.

The glimpse into our thinking about the OGP reveals a lack of interest, enthusiasm and urgency, and the low priority Canberra attaches to an international initiative designed to improve democratic practices at home and abroad.

In response to a series of questions from Senator John Faulkner (left) who  raised the OGP issue with PM&C, AGD and Finance during the week, Minister Cormann left no doubt where we stand. Time and time again:

• "It is a matter that is currently under consideration...."

• "we are not in the process of joining.."

• "At this stage Australia has not formally joined the open government partnership. And the previous government did not. The previous government gave an indication that it was committed to joining, but it did not actually formally join. So this is a matter that we are now considering to give consideration to...(sic)"

• "the previous government expressed an intention to join.They did not finalise that and proceed to the ultimate joining, and at this stage we are considering how to progress this from here. We have not made a decision not to join but we also have not made a positive decision to join....

• "we have not decided yet on whether we will or will not proceed with that intention to join..."

• "we have not actually made a decision..."

The Minister made it clear that Finance Secretary David Tune (who has since announced his retirement apparently for other reasons) was off target in relying on information on the OGP website to tell Senator Faulkner: "There are 64 participating countries in the OGP, of which 57 have joined and seven are in the process of joining...We are one of the seven." No we aren't said the Minister, confirming that the related statement on the OGP website that Australia is one of 10 countries that comprise Cohort 4 and will join in April 2014 "is not right as far as Australia is concerned." Minister Cormann was less fussed about a reference to May 2015. 

By the way, the OGP appears to have jumped well ahead of where Minister Cormann finds himself, announcing last week that Daniel Stewart, an ANU law academic had been recruited to undertake the Independent Review of Australia's National Action Plan. That's a plan we need to develop if and when we decide to join.

There wasn't a word from the minister or officials about what has prompted the overall lack of enthusiasm for the cause and our adopted position on the fence.  

The Open Government Partnership is "a global effort to make governments more open and responsive." That sounds like a universally shared democratic value.  

Things appear to have changed since September when the White House made this statement supportive of the OGP and the principles that underpin it on behalf of 20 governments including Australia.
  And since October/ November when according to these Department of Finance documents released to me in April in response to an FOI application, officials were saying

the Government (has been) briefed about OGP, and agreement (now reached) at least in principle across several departments and Ministerial offices that this is a good thing to pursue. Next steps will be continuing to work through the process to get formal endorsement to pursue OGP membership, formal delegation of responsibility to Finance, more consultation on the approach, and hopefully the ability to launch a consultation in the coming month or so. We need to have our National Action Plan developed by April 2014, so the timeline is tight, but doable.

Hmm.

Not that there is much effort going into pondering our situation.

John Sheridan First Assistant Secretary and Procurement Coordinator told Senator Faulkner the work in Finance on the OGP is "done by myself and one of my direct reports, an EL2 who works on these matters and related Gov2.0 matters, and she is occasionally assisted by one of my other staff, a more junior staff member who works on related IT matters." Around five per cent of Sheridan's time, and all up "half an FTE at the most."

As to the previously described (months ago by Attorney General Brandis no less and reiterated in AGD Estimates earlier in the week) "interagency meetings" of officials, Mr Sheridan now says "I am hesitant to call it formally an interagency committee as opposed to just a series of meetings." The Minister took this up:

Senator Cormann: But Senator Faulkner, we don't want to get caught up in semantics either. One person's meeting is another person's committee. Let us say that there have been interdepartmental committees, even though they might have been slightly more on the informal side than on the structured side.

Senator FAULKNER: What you are saying—and I am just trying to establish the facts here—is that there is no formal IDC. Is that a fair comment to make?

Senator Cormann: That is right, and there has not been previously.

Mr Sheridan : No, Minister, there hasn't.

An indication of the informality of the gatherings perhaps: in responding to my FOI request for the record of the three inter agency meetings Attorney General Brandis said had been held last year Attorney General's Department told me they only had a record of one of the three!

Departments involved in the less than formal chitchat apparently are AGD, Finance, PM&C, Communications, DFAT, DRET,, Archives and (vale) OAIC. 

Hope someone has better records than AGD.
 

Senator Faulkner spoke for all those who share his interest in integrity and open, transparent and accountable government when he said towards the end of the session

I am very, very disappointed that we are not strongly committed to progressing a very active role in the OGP. I am very, very disappointed with the proposed policy changes in the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and the like.... I have had a longstanding interest, as I think you and perhaps officials would know about, in Australia's commitment to the OGP and broadly in relation to transparency and accountability measures in government...... My views on this have been expressed publicly and consistently for a very long time and probably have not found a lot of favour with the current government or the previous government.....My intention is to try to progress these matters and ask questions as I am asking. And I flagged with you and the department that I will continue to ask questions...

 Senator Faulkner earlier in the week in Attorney General's Estimates established that responsibility for the OGP had been transferred from that department to Finance on 1 April, but no one including the Attorney General could add much by way of explanation other than Senator Cormann "was quite eager that policy leadership in relation to the Open Government Partnership lie within his portfolio." Finance Secretary Tune referred to the OGP fit with the department's "ICT functions."

The PM and the invitation to Bali  
As to Australian participation in Bali OGP Asia Pacific Regional Conference, officials from Prime Minister and Cabinet responded to questions from Senator Dastyari and Senator Faulkner with the news that the Prime Minister was invited to attend by President Yudhoyono on 19 March, and that we told the Indonesians he wouldn't be going on 2 May, days before meetings commenced. 

John Sheridan of Finance said the PM had been invited to the OGP Steering Committee meeting that preceded the regional meeting.

Officials from PM&C had no knowledge of invitations to the Attorney General, Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Minister for Finance. When asked, Attorney General Brandis couldn't recall receiving an invitation but intends to inquire further. John Sheridan confirmed the Finance Minister had been invited to the Regional Conference.

In the end Sheridan was our only representative in an 'observer' capacity.

Below in the order in which the hearings took place are the relevant extracts from the Estimates Transcripts for PM&C, AGD, and Finance. 

Estimates have another week to go. Maybe the issue will be raised with Communications, given the Minister's interest in open data, and Foreign Affairs given the foreign policy interests involved. 

So far it's not a pretty picture.