Labor makes a 10 minute hit on culture of secrecy, government speakers stay mum

In the House of Representatives yesterday Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, ALP) moved:

That this House:
(1) expresses concern at the culture of secrecy prevalent in the Government and the serious undermining of the core principles enshrined in the freedom of information legislation;
(2) notes the Government has:
(a) defunded the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) despite failing to pass its legislation to abolish the office; and
(b) failed to advance Australia's application for the Open Government Partnership (OGP); and
(3) calls on the Government to abandon its attack on the OAIC and provide it with proper funding, and recommit to joining the OGP.

The motion didn't get far in the 10 minutes allocated before debate was adjourned with Mactiernan and Labor Party colleague Graham Perrett the only speakers.

Could the lack of interest or appetite on government benches to contest the argument suggest a decision not to waste time defending the indefensible while rethinking is underway or completed on both the OAIC and the OGP fronts? Ah, we live in hope.

Mactiernan recounted to the House an FOI experience unlikely to stand the pub test: 
an application to a minister (in this case an assistant minister) that was not processed before the reshuffle, for documents concerning a decision to support a $1.7 billion project in WA couldn't be processed afterwards

"since the portfolio of the assistant minister no longer exists and.. the documents have not been transferred to the new minister.... 'These documents are specific to the minister and to the staff.'

Iran 1970: Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons

Crikey's Josh Taylor ran into the same problem with FOI requests to the office of Prime Minister Tony Abbott that had gone unanswered for seven months before Malcolm Turnbull’s arrival in the office. They couldn't be processed thereafter because the documents weren't held by the office of the current PM. Taylor speculates "the FOI request was lost in one of the dozens of bags of shredded documents seen leaving the prime minister’s office the morning after the leadership change."

The rules about retention, transfer or disposal of documents when the minister leaves or transfers office are hard to find. In theory at least documents held by a minister's office concerning the discharge of functions as a minister are records for the purposes of the Archives Act. 

 Archives Australia provides guidance on what happens to records held by an agency when administrative changes occur, but nothing that I can see when ministers leave the chair.

The FOI situation is that a minister's office is a separate entity from the department for which the minister is responsible. Documents subject to FOI in the hands of the incumbent at any time are those documents "held by the minister" that relate to the affairs of an agency or department. 

If the documents went out the door or found their own way to the shredder as the previous minister and staff headed out, the documents won't be held by the newcomer, end of section.

ACT FOI bill best of breed by far but will it fly?

Markus Mannheim in The Canberra Times recently drew attention to the Freedom of Information bill drafted by Shane Rattenbury, the sole Greens MLA in the ACT Labor-led government. 

Mannheim was right to suggest passage of the bill would make the territory the most transparent jurisdiction in Australia. The bill in its current form is not available and is still subject to negotiation with the Labor Party, but Mr Rattenbury tweeted that it is the draft tabled for consultation over 18 months ago with a few changes.

See my comments in February 2014 with a link to the bill as it stood at that time.

Now years in the making, can the bill get across the line?

 @smbounds @MarkusMannheim Exposure draft on ACT Leg Reg at https://t.co/qaLhHh0fey Few changes since but basically same.

— Shane Rattenbury (@ShaneRattenbury) October 27, 2015

Too much work involved in deciding whether you should see AG's appoinments diary and you can't see any of it, so there!

The Sydney Morning Herald and other media are enjoying the Freedom of Information battle in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal between the former Attorney General Mark Dreyfus and his successor Senator George Brandis over access to the current attorney's appointments diary for an eight month period in 2013-14.  

Me too when I sat through the three hour hearing in Sydney this morning.

But none of us enjoyed it more than Dreyfus.

Dreyfus QC who represented himself and giving the lie to that old maxim, a lawyer who does so has a fool for a client, had an enjoyable morning drawing on years of knowledge of  FOI law gained at the bar in his pre-parliament years and experience since in ministerial positions. Dreyfus was masterly in making submissions and putting Brandis Chief of Staff Paul O'Sullivan through the hoops. 

O'Sullivan by the way didn't seem to enjoy it at all. 

Paul Farrell in The Guardian provides a detailed report of proceedings.

The Tribunal is required to make the correct and preferable decision in light of O'Sullivan's determination to refuse to deal with the application because doing so would "substantially and unreasonably interfere with the performance of the Minister's functions."

Dreyfus argued that the Attorney General (well O'Sullivan in his name) had misconceived
what was required, exaggerating the time and resources involved by citing exemption considerations that were ill informed, and consultation requirements that went beyond what was required in order to justify a claim that hundreds of hours would be involved in dealing with the request in accordance with provisions of the FOI act. 

Dreyfus argued the approach was wrong and the estimated time involved way beyond what was realistic.

On a point that could if successful give new prominence to the importance of the objects of the act Dreyfus submitted that contrary to the approach taken by O'Sullivan in identifying every conceivable problem that stood in the way of granting access, the objects in Section 3 set out rights of access and agency obligations that overall dictated a different approach:

• the act conferred a right to access documents,

• Parliament's stated intention "was to promote Australia's representative democracy by contributing towards increasing scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of the Government's activities", and 

• of particular relevance in this case, Parliament "also intends that functions and powers given by this Act are to be performed and exercised, as far as possible, to facilitate and promote public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost."

Another issue of interest in the case is the contention on behalf of the Attorney General that each of the almost two thousand entries in the diary are separate document.  Dreyfus argues on the basis of authority particularly a Victorian Court of Appeal decision that they consist of one document. 

Both parties acknowledge some entries in the diary are outside the scope of the FOI act because they do not relate to the affairs of an agency and are thus not 'Minister's documents' for the purpose of the FOI act.

In a telling admission of the 'horse and buggy' approach to dealing with FOI matters in the office of the minister responsible for the FOI act, O' Sullivan said redacting information from a requested document was complex and time consuming for the one officer trained in the task using the one computer that had the necessary software. Each redaction involved about 13 keyboard commands and took 5-10 minutes.That's after the very time consuming process O'Sullivan recounted in deciding if a name of someone in the appointments diary could reasonably be expected to give rise to a consultation or exemption requirement.

Software suppliers who have ready made answers should be knocking on O'Sullivan's door as we speak.

Justice Jago who reserved her decision expressed a degree of scepticism about whether the mere mention of the name of a person scheduled to meet the Attorney General touched off either consideration.

The bills before the Parliament to abolish the Office of Australian Information Commissioner and make other changes to FOI arrangements would see the Attorney General and his department responsible for government wide guidance on the interpretation of the FOI act and presumably for good practice standards in the stead of an independent statutory officer.

Surely the PM sees folly in this.

 

Open, transparent government: Australia struggling to join the dots

The Australian government seems to have kept its distance from the Open Government Partnership Global Summit in Mexico City last week while close to 3000 by some calculations gathered there to discuss, explore, share and learn about enhancing open, transparent government and citizen participation.

In a week when Environment Minister Greg Hunt was speaking in Beijing "attempting to re-assert the nation's eco-credentials on the world stage after the removal of Tony Abbott as prime minister" the government did little to assure domestic and international audiences that the Abbott era 'war on transparency' was a thing of the past.

There was no response, publicly at least, to a request four months ago that the government clarify its intentions regarding OGP membership before the summit. And there was no Australian government representation there as far as I can ascertain although who knows, someone in the embassy may have had nothing more pressing to do. (Addendum: I hear the Ambassador was down to attend something during the three days.)

In Mexico City, heads of state and government, ministers, senior officials, parliamentarians, local governments, international organisations, the private sector and civil society representatives gathered to examine among other topics how the OGP and the principles that underpin the initiative could be applied to advance the Sustainable Development Goals, contribute to anti-corruption plans, harness new technologies to make government more open, effective and accountable, increase transparency in a wide range of areas from health to forestry and other extractive industries, encourage and protect civil society engagement, and expand learning and experience from the partnership to sub-national levels of government.

 Mexican President President Enrique Pena Nieto opened the conference. 

Those present included Sierra Leone President Ernest Bai Koroma, Costa Rican President Luis Guillermo Solis Rivera, South African Deputy President Ramaphosa, Romanian Prime Minister Victor Ponta, Guyana Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo, Sri Lankan Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr. Harsha De Silva, UK Minister of State for Trade and Investment, previously Minister for the Cabinet Office Lord Francis Maude, and Latvian Foreign Ministry’s Parliamentary State Secretary for EU Affairs Zanda Kalnina-Lukasevica.  

US Assistant Secretary of State Tom Malinowski was there in a delegation led by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power. As were government representatives from Canada and New Zealand as well as former NZ prime minister, now head of the UNDP Helen Clark. 

Georgia won the OGP Government Champions Award.

Sri Lanka, Papua New Guinea and Cote D'Ivoire announced their intention to join.

The Australian government? 

Nowhere to be seen, Silvana Fumega the only participant from this neck of the woods that I'm aware of. (Addendum: anybody see the Australian Ambassador?)
 
Close to 70 countries have joined or announced an intention to do so. Foundation members such as the US are now at the stage of a Third National Action Plan. The Liberal/ National government has been considering and reconsidering for over two years the May 2013 notice of Australia's intention to join. There is nothing in the public domain to show for this.
 
The partnership is not without its challenges and problems. 

But as Simon Burall director of public participation think tank and charity Involve and a member of the UK Open Government Network’s steering group observes, the OGP

is like no other international process I’ve been involved in – and I’ve been involved in more than my fair share.There are precious few international or national organisations that place government and civil society firmly on a level, with equal power. There are even fewer where governments make joint commitments with civil society to push themselves to be more open, more participative and more accountable. To top it all, these commitments are independently reviewed rather than peer reviewed in the style of mutual back-slapping. But what really draws me to the OGP is that it focuses on creating a space where reformers inside government and civil society can work together, learn from each other, push and inspire each other, and make deeper, more challenging reforms.

Meanwhile on the home front 

• the Public Data Branch in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet announced its arrival on the scene, promising "to prioritise better sharing and publishing of government data by putting data policy at the very heart of the public sector." 

• Stephen Bartos in the Canberra Times listed reasons why Australia lags in the international open data stakes including the strong attachment to the notion that government "owns" its data and controls access to it, and cultural barriers in the middle ranks where data is held close and openness feared.

• The silos stand. PM&C is encouraging release of government data with decisions left to the discretion of the agencies that hold the data; the Freedom of Information Act that includes a limited mandatory pro-active disclosure requirement is unloved by those in important senior roles in government as Professor Richard Mulgan points out also in the Canberra Times, and in need of  review and modernisation in any event; and the Attorney General remains committed to abolishing the Office of Australian Information Commissioner that would among other adverse effects remove the independent advocate and watchdog for open, transparent and accountable government, having already defunded the office's government wide information policy function.

The Prime Minister is on the record as saying he wants to see more open, consultative government and stated an intention to reach out to the international community in this space. I think he meant it. Can someone help him join the dots?

Turnbull government stands its ground, apart from international open government community

Disappointing that the Turnbull Government chose to keep the head down rather than step up publicly with a positive response to the request three months ago from the Open Government Partnership Steering Committee to recommit by the time of the OGP Global Summit in Mexico this week. 

Spirits here rose sharply yesterday morning when my email inbox lit up:

Re: Commitment to open government -  Whitney Brennan Office of The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP

Only to drop like a stone when it turned out to be pretty much the standard boiler plate, pass the parcel reply to an email sent to the PM a week ago about the OGP and the related issue, the continuing saga of the Attorney General's attempt to scuttle the Office of Australian Information Commissioner. 

Toby McIntosh reports over one thousand delegates from 94 countries attended the
Civil Society Day in Mexico City yesterday prior to the official two-day OGP meeting.

Meanwhile back in Canberra.......
 
Emails to and from the PM's office and an earlier exchange with Mr Turnbull in July follow.

Australian Press Council seeks Government commitment to open and transparent government

"The Chair of the Australian Press Council, Professor David Weisbrot, called on the Turnbull government today to demonstrate its commitment to open and transparent democracy by immediately providing the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) with sufficient resources to fulfil its mission under existing law.

Professor Weisbrot also called on the government to send a high level delegation to the Open Government Partnership’s Global Summit in Mexico City, to be held on 27-29 October.

“Australia used to be one of the world’s leaders in promoting open government and freedom of information, along with Scandinavian countries,” Prof Weisbrot said. “Now, there appears to be little interest in federal government circles, which is a great shame as these issues are more important than ever.

"These are not only critical issues for all of us as citizens, but they are of particular importance in underpinning the work of the free press, which is reliant upon open access to government information, minimising secrecy laws and encouraging whistleblowers who disclose government or corporate malpractice.

“The lack of commitment to our own OAIC is a very discouraging sign — and with the Global Summit to commence in days, we are still waiting for any sign of interest in that meeting by the Turnbull government or the federal Opposition”

The OAIC has been badly run down in recent years, with a single commissioner (the former Privacy Commissioner) on a short-term contract filling the roles designed by Parliament to be covered by three senior statutory officers.

There was little evidence at the recent Senate Estimates hearings that Attorney-General George Brandis is planning to restore the OAIC’s budgetary and human resources, nor was any alternative strategy canvassed for ensuring that Australia maintains a robust freedom of information system, open government and privacy protection.

Australia made a commitment in May 2013 to join the Open Government Partnership (OGP), but has been inactive ever since, while most other nations have been busy designing and implementing government Action Plans in collaboration with civil society organisations, Prof Weisbrot pointed out. The OGP consists of 66 member countries and aims to secure concrete commitments from governments to promote transparency, empower citizens, fight corruption, and harness new technologies to strengthen governance.

“Open and transparent government is one of the key foundation stones of liberal democratic government,” Prof Weisbrot said. “Free access to data and documents held by government — with some obvious exceptions for a small amount of information that is security sensitive or otherwise clearly inappropriate for release — is essential for ensuring good policy making and sound administrative decision making, as well as for exposing and preventing corruption”.

For more details, contact Michael Rose, the Press Council’s Director of Research and Communications, on 0451 978 276 or by email at michael.rose@presscouncil.org.au"

A simple step for Australia to come out of the Open Government Partnership naughty corner

With one day until the Global Summit gets underway in Mexico City, Canberra maintains silence in response to the request in July that Australia indicate its intentions by this time.

Distinguished former Australian diplomat Richard Woolcott is the latest to call on the government to sign on. On the Lowy Institute Interpreter Woolcott lists eight ideas for fine tuning foreign policy in the Turnbull era including:

"Another positive change which Prime Minister Turnbull could make as soon as possible would be to sign up to the Open Government Partnership. Nearly 70 countries, including Indonesia, New Zealand, the Philippines, the US and the UK have already done so. Mr Turnbull has said he wants to have a more transparent and open government. Joining would reinforce his comments."

Meanwhile Toby McIntosh in Washington notes that dealing with the few difficult members poses problems for an organisation that is guided by a steering committee consisting of government and civil society representatives. Particularly in dealing with complaints from civil society in a member country about a government clamp down. 

And closer to home, complaints about failure by a member government to live up to its OGP commitments:

"When countries have missed deadlines, the OGP has occasionally, and as a last resort, issued public warnings about the need to get back on track, usually with good effect. One member, Australia, has done virtually nothing. This caused the Steering Committee in July to set a deadline of next week for Australia to recommit. (See FreedomInfo.org report.) Australia, joined up under a liberal leader, but left its membership card in the wallet under a conservative government. A recent change in governments back to the liberal persuasion may trigger recommittal, but no official word has emerged."

The OGP aim overall has been to keep members and intending members inside the tent to the extent possible with a liberal interpretation and application of the rules. Australia got to first base in May 2013 with its notice of intention to join. Followed by two and a half years and counting of considering and reconsidering while deadlines for next steps passed.

A recommitment to the OGP should be a walk up for a 21st Century government led by a prime minister who not only wants his government to be more open and consultative but has said Australia "should aim to become the world's leading digital economy....." 
And that we intend to reach out globally to collaborate with the world’s best.

Now's the time to reach out and link up with the 66 countries in the OGP.  

Let's do it, at the same time eliminating that stain on our credentials, the plan announced in the infamous 2014 budget and still stuck in the Senate to abolish the Office of Australian Information Commissioner

McIntosh points to powers that could be exercised if and when patience finally runs out:

The OGP Articles of Governance provide a mechanism for suspension in the event of repeated missed deadlines. The OGP Steering Committee 2014 adopted a policy under which two warnings in a row would trigger a discussion about continued OGP membership. (See previous FreedomInfo.org report.) The policy states:

Should the Support Unit or IRM process find that a participating government repeatedly (for two consecutive action plan cycles) acts contrary to OGP process or its Action Plan commitments (addenda B and C), and fails to adequately address issues raised by the IRM, the SC may upon recommendation of the Criteria and Standards (CS) sub-committee review the participation of said government in OGP.

I'm sure it won't come to that or an Australian walk in the footsteps of Russia, the only country to sign on and then think better of it.

Silence on Open Government Partnership five days from Mexico deadline

Will we, won't we?

Not a peep out of Canberra (except these unsourced positives) in response to the request from the OGP Steering Committee in July that Australia indicate its position prior to the Global Summit in Mexico City commencing on 27 October.

But out of Berlin a letter to Prime Minister Turnbull  from Cobus de Swardt Managing Director of Transparency International urging Australia to fully sign on, and send a delegate to the summit which will include a side meeting on how the OGP contributes to the fight against corruption:

Transparency International would like to extend our sincere congratulations to you on becoming Prime Minister. We look forward to working together to achieve a consultative and open government that effectively tackles corruption.

For Transparency International, a first step towards these aims is for the Australian government to realise its outstanding membership requirements as part of the Open Government Partnership (OGP).
Australia made a May 2013 commitment to join OGP, a multilateral initiative with 66 member countries that aims to “secure concrete commitments from governments to promote transparency, empower citizens, fight corruption, and harness new technologies to strengthen governance.” Yet in the 30 month period since joining, Australia has made little public progress on advancing such commitments while other nations have designed and implemented one or more OGP national ‘Action Plans’ in collaboration with civil society.

There is an opportunity to correct this. On October 27th, the President of Mexico will host all the OGP governments at a Global Summit in the country’s capital. Transparency International encourages the Australian government to take a strong public stand ahead of the summit and state that it will fully comply with the OGP membership requirements. The government should also send a delegate to the summit and join the planned side meeting the Mexican government will convene on how the OGP contributes to the fight against corruption.

At this stage it looks as if Australian involvement -government and non government alike- will be minimalist if registrations as at 19 October are anything to go by. A list seen by Open and Shut includes nineteen hundred names, no kidding, but only one from Australia-Silvana Fumega from Tasmania.  

Public service chief's FOI 'very pernicious' claim based on false premise.

The responses by Australian Public Service Commissioner John Lloyd to questions in Senate Estimates on Monday suggest Mr Lloyd doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to information access in the cause of transparency and accountability.

Apparently he didn't know when he described freedom of information earlier in the year as "very pernicious." His comments this week showed he hadn't bothered to find out much since March, or talk to others including ministers about the subject.

The Canberra Times and The Mandarin (registration) report his remarks but neither make the point that Lloyd based his claim on a false premise, and on that basis, ventured an opinion few outside the public service share: that FOI as originally conceived was intended ('particularly') to provide access to information about an individual's dealings with government, and that the law had expanded in the wrong direction since.

FOI law since enacted (after years of public service resistance) is about open, transparent and accountable government. The objects of the act in 1982 and since 2010 are reproduced below.

Reviews, investigations, reports and experience over the years showed that the law and its implementation by ministers and public servants fell a long way short of the promise.Things changed since 1982 across technology, public expectations, and thinking inside and outside government about publication of data and pro-active disclosure of other information.

The 2010 reforms as a result took a few steps in the right direction, but open transparent and accountable government is a long journey, not assisted when public servants (no names no pack-drill) look to thwart the ideals. 

Most who look into the subject, including the last reviewer of the FOI act, Dr Allan Hawke don't give credence to the argument that FOI constrains the public service in providing written frank, professional advice.

The direction on the journey is forward, not back to a past that hasn't existed in any event since 1982.

You have to wonder how comfortable and enthusiastic Lloyd is as leader of the public service in a government led by a prime minister whose stated intention is for government to be more open consultative and participatory. 

Come to think of it, how the Prime Minister feels about it.

Estimates
Lloyd, quizzed (along lines suggested in this post in June) by Senator Rhiannon and Senator Ludwig on Monday about what he meant, said 

"My view is that the FOI laws have extended beyond perhaps what I understood to be the original intention, which was particularly to allow our citizens to have access to information about their affairs that governments were holding. It seems to me that it has come to a stage where people are very reluctant perhaps at times to give advice in writing. I found this throughout my experience in both state and federal governments — both coalition and ALP — over many years. That is often the statement that is made: I would rather not give that in writing. I do not think that was the intention of FOI."

Objects Freedom of Information
As enacted in 1982:

 3. (1) .. to extend as far as possible the right of the Australian community to access to information in the possession of the Government of the Commonwealth by - (a) making available to the public information about the operations of departments and public authorities and, in particular, ensuring that rules and practices affecting members of the public in their dealings with departments and public authorities are readily available to persons affected by those rules and practices; and (b) creating a general right of access to information in documentary form in the possession of Ministers, departments and public authorities, limited only by exceptions and exemptions necessary for the protection of essential public interests and the private and business affairs of persons in respect of whom information is collected and held by departments and public authorities.

As a result of reforms in 2010

 3. (1)  The objects of this Act are to give the Australian community access to information held by the Government of the Commonwealth or the Government of Norfolk Island, by:(a)  requiring agencies to publish the information; and (b)  providing for a right of access to documents.

(2)  The Parliament intends, by these objects, to promote Australia's representative democracy by contributing towards the following:

 (a)  increasing public participation in Government processes, with a view to promoting better-informed decision-making;

 (b)  increasing scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of the Government's activities.

(3)  The Parliament also intends, by these objects, to increase recognition that information held by the Government is to be managed for public purposes, and is a national resource.

(4)  The Parliament also intends that functions and powers given by this Act are to be performed and exercised, as far as possible, to facilitate and promote public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost. 

Lloyd on speaking up

Lloyd defended his statement and the right to make it ("I think that, as Public Service Commissioner, I have a responsibility to at times comment on matters which go to the administration and management of the Public Service"; said he hadn't raised it with the minister for public service because responsibility rested with the Attorney General, and he hadn't raised it there either ("They would have been aware of my comment. I did not see the need to actually take it further.") and saw nothing wrong or inappropriate with injecting "a view into the public discussion."

Conclusion
Someone in the Australian Public Service Commission needs to give Mr Lloyd a briefing note before he ventures into public discussion on the topic again. And while he shouldn't need it, a book on how tone at the top influences culture throughout. He has a service wide parish.

A higher authority needs to counter the unfortunate message that FOI has taken a wrong turn and can be labeled very pernicious - extremely "harmful especially in a gradual or subtle way; damaging, detrimental, deleterious."

Extracts from Senate Estimates follow:

Silence on Open Government Partnership seven days out from Mexico deadline

No questions of Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet about the Open Government Partnership in Senate Estimates yesterday and no word from the Prime Minister. With seven days to the OGP Global Summit in Mexico City, will Australia recommit?

Senator Gallagher raised a few other data policy issues with Deputy Secretary (Projects) Dr Heather Smith. Extracts:

Barbeque stopper: NSW government contracting itself out of information access law?

Jacob Saulwick's report in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday was a barbeque stopper where I was over the weekend and I don't expect that's just because I move in narrow circles:

The largest transport project in the country could be shielded from public scrutiny after the government transferred control of the $15.4 billion WestConnex motorway to a "private corporation". The transfer means information about the Sydney Motorway Corporation, which is now in charge of building the motorway, cannot be captured by freedom of information requests.......When Fairfax Media requested, using the Government Information (Public Access) Act (GIPA), the salary and bonus details of top WestConnex representatives, Roads and Maritime Services responded, in part: "Sydney Motorway Corporation Pty Ltd is a private corporation and not a Government agency."

Saulwick went on to mention that a spokeswoman for the SMC said a 2014-15 financial report would be submitted to ASIC by the end of October, which would disclose information relating to key management compensation. The spokeswoman also said that because the corporation is delivering and financing the road on behalf of RMS, RMS "will continue to hold information relating to WestConnex and remains subject to GIPA".

But could it be true, friends asked, that the government could in effect contract out to a wholly owned government private company control of a government funded $15 billion project and avoid the standard government transparency and accountability provided by freedom of information?

The answer is yes it could. On the other hand, it doesn't have to be.

More later when I have the time.

Senate estimates in a week when decisions needed on open government in practice

Senate Estimates hearings get underway in Canberra today. 

Let's hope for clarification on where Australia stands with the Open Government Partnership and the future for the Office of Australian Information Commissioner.

Estimates kick off today with the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet

PM&C now has responsibility for the Open Government Partnership. A response is still outstanding to the request from the OGP Steering Committee in July that in light of disappointment at the failure to follow through on the notice of intention to join in May 2013 Australia recommit to membership before the Global Summit in Mexico on 27 October.

As former Victorian Supreme Court justices Tim Smith, David Harper and Stephen Charles write in Fairfax Media today on the OGP issue, "Time for Turnbull to step up on open government."

The Office of Australian Information Commissioner is listed for hearing on Tuesday 20 October.

The day that Privacy Commissioner Timothy Pilgrim's appointment as acting Australian Information Commissioner for a three month period expires. As the Attorney General Brandis said at the time, the appointment was "while the Government considers options for the future of the Information Commissioner position."

But not a peep from Attorney General Brandis since about what the government plans with the Freedom of Information Amendment (New Arrangements) Bill that would abolish the Information Commissioner position. The bill remains on the Senate Bills List where it has been since October last year. 

Abolishing the office and the Information Commissioner position does not fit with the Prime Minister's ambition to lead an accountable open government.

Let's clear up these uncertainties this week and get on with it.

Report: Open Government Partnership file dusted off and in new hands

I've no reason to doubt but hoping James Riley, Editorial Director, writing on Innovation Aus.com had reliable sources when he wrote earlier in the week:

Having been quietly shelved two years ago, Australia’s plans to join the multilateral Open Government Partnership are being dusted off by Malcolm Turnbull and an announcement to formally sign-on is expected within weeks.
Prime Minister Turnbull is understood to have considered a proposal last week to move ahead with the OGP, and the final discussions are underway to make that happen. The Prime Minister was expected to approve in-principal (sic) policy, which would provide direction for machinery of government negotiations which are currently underway and which will ultimate decide how Australia’s commitment to the program will be managed.

Finance confirms responsibility for the OGP has transferred to Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and inquiries there are directed to Dr Heather Smith, Deputy Secretary (Projects).

The OGP Steering Committee in July asked for an indication of Australia's intentions before the Global Summit in Mexico City 27-29 October. 

A new strong commitment to the OGP would be welcome here and in international circles. Perhaps personally delivered or reinforced in Mexico City by say Minister for Communications and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Digital Government Mitch Fifiield? But if a minister can't make it, Dr Smith would be a welcome first for Australia, a senior government representative in our seat at an OGP event. 

Deadline approaches for Australian decision on Open Government Partnership

The OGP Steering Committee at its meeting in July 2015 noted as "particularly concerning" Australia's failure to follow through with its membership application lodged in May 2013 and "agreed on next steps and a deadline for Australia to recommit to OGP by the time of the Global Summit."

The Global Summit will be held in Mexico City 27-29 October.

The only public response to date to the Steering Committee request was this answer (from the Department of Finance) to a question on 8 September:

As has been stated publicly previously, the Government is positively inclined towards finalising its membership of the Open Government Partnership but is still considering its position. Once the decision is made, it will be conveyed to the OGP. 

It's a matter for the busy Prime Minister of course - the last one was responsible for much of the dithering - although there is uncertainty whether Finance or the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet now has carriage of such matters.

So will the Turnbull government:

• let the deadline quietly pass?

• ask for even more time to decide, continuing four years of foot dragging?

• join Russia as the only country to date to say it was joining only to withdraw?

• recommit to membership before 27 October, thereby expressing intent to explore with civil society, domestic reforms across the transparency, accountability and citizen participation spectrum; link up with the world leaders in advancing digital and open government and the use of open data; and through active engagement with current and aspiring members, promote our foreign policy and development goals ( including making a connection with the Sustainable Development Goals) particularly in the Asia Pacific region?  Will we sign on with: (Update) Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cabo Verde, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malawi, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Slovak Republic, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay.  Check out where each stands with their plans and commitments here:

Albania

Argentina

Armenia

Azerbaijan

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Brazil

Bulgaria

Cabo Verde

Canada

Chile

Colombia

Costa Rica

Croatia

Czech Republic

Denmark

Dominican Republic

El Salvador

Estonia

Finland

France

Georgia

Ghana

Greece

Guatemala

Honduras

Hungary

Indonesia

Ireland

Israel

Italy

Jordan

Kenya

Latvia

Liberia

Lithuania

Macedonia

Malawi

Malta

Mexico

Moldova

Mongolia

Montenegro

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Panama

Paraguay

Peru

Philippines

Romania

Serbia

Sierra Leone

Slovak Republic

South Africa

South Korea

Spain

Sweden

Tanzania

Trinidad and Tobago

Tunisia

Turkey

Ukraine

United Kingdom

United States

Uruguay

A commitment to the OGP will lack credibility if the government at the same time continues with the pointless attempt to abolish the Office of Australian Information Commissioner.