Alison Sandy who found her FOI feet with the Courier Mail and is now Freedom of Information Editor at Seven News, compares our governments on the secrecy-transparency scale, well mainly FOI law and practice, and gives Queensland the gold star and South Australia the wooden spoon.
Experience rather than detailed research and analysis of all the variables here, but generally close to the money for mine.Tasmania and Western Australia don't get a mention. The former is in good FOI law territory while the latter should be marked down because it sat out the 2009-2010 reform era that elsewhere brought more pro-active disclosure and other positives for information access.
Paul Farrell in The Guardian is close to the money as well in asserting that the sound of closing doors in Canberra, with changes on the way, indicate a "new and deliberate assault is now being launched on one of the pillars of access to federal government information: the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. We risk losing one of our most valuable tools to help open governments." The string of published comments includes this from me on the Budget announcement that the Office of Australian Information Commissioner is to be abolished:
The changes proposed are a giant step backward. FOI was an orphan in government for close to 30 years without an independent champion and advocate, someone to nurture, safeguard,and promote the idea that the citizenry has a right to access government information. That gap was filled by the reforms of 2010 although the Commissioner was never properly empowered or resourced. Now the position is to be abolished. Review of a government decision not to disclose information in response to an FOI application, now available after an inordinate delay from the Information Commissioner will in future only be available by application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. From 1 July the fee is $861, the process is unlikely to be speedy and you would be game venturing there without a lawyer because the government agency arguing against you will have a good, expensive one. In future advice and guidance on the interpretation of the legislation for government agencies, now with the Commissioner, will be in the hands of the Attorney General's Department. Talk about fox and hen house! The claim that these changes will improve transparency and accountability is laughable, not based on evidence, and runs counter to the trends around the world where independent office holders champion the cause and provide non litigious review of decisions. Finally whether the changes will produce the claimed savings of $10 million over four years is uncertain to say the least.That the public are the losers isn't I'm afraid.
Farrell notes the role played by the media coalition Australia's Right to Know in leading the 2007 campaign for FOI reform that bore fruit in 2010, suggesting now is the time for the coalition's long silence since to be broken. That's on the money as well.
In this interview broadcast on gov 2.0 Radio, Australian Information Commissioner Professor John McMillan discusses the Open Government Partnership and what flows from Australia's decision to join.
Professor McMillan sees benefits from our participation at the international level, in the region through added weight to our promotion of an integrity framework as part of our assistance programs, and at home by focusing further attention on these issues after a few quiet years.
Other observations of interest included:
- across the country, the Federal government, states and local government have been doing their own thing in the open government space with little formal alignment. The development of a national action plan is an opportunity to look at this from a truly national perspective
- transparency, accountability and public participation and engagement underpin the OGP commitment. The Canadian shorthand "Open Information, Open Data, Open Dialogue" captures it well. The US Plan provides a good model for the broad big picture thinking required.
- achievements in other countries since 2011 have owed much to high level leadership and support of the kind shown, for example by President Obama and UK Cabinet Minister Maude. "We are looking for this in Australia."
- realistically, open government can complicate life for government decision makers. Information available on the My School website for example focuses attention on political choices concerning funding and brings forward questions about priorities, comparisons and fair and equitable allocation of resources.
- the OGP initiative isn't just the government out in front on its own. Civil society organisations are interested in these issues but often in specific aspects - for example, traditional FOI for journalists and interest groups, Gov 2.0, and open data for other players. There is a need to lift the sights and move beyond some of these barriers.
- the National Action Plan must be a collaboration. "Soon" (this was two weeks ago) the first liaison meeting of government agencies involved in OGP issues will take place. Subsequent engagement with those outside government will be challenging. The aim should be to develop a 10-20 page well defined coherent plan. The US approach overall is one that we should follow.
- "most of the work has been done (in Australia)"- FOI legislation, information commisioner, a government information office (AGIMO), Gov 2.0, examples of innovation etc. To date we "lack a plan that brings this together." Strong political and executive government leadership will be required.
All this sounds promising. Except the "most of the work" part. And I'm sure Professor McMillan didn't mean it literally.
While good progress on open government has been made over 30 years, this sort of work is never done.
The OGP National Action Plan model calls on countries to identify "stretch commitments" that go beyond past achievements and repackaging existing plans. That's why it can't be left entirely to government, relying completely on public service advice.
Roll on the collaboration!
Agencies other than Foreign Affairs and Trade get to try their hand from time to time at Section
33 of the Freedom of Information Act and whether disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to, cause damage to the international relations of the Commonwealth. With contrasting results as seen in two recent review decisions by the Office of Australian Information Commissioner. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, in the unusual position of being against disclosure, unsuccessfully argued that damage would result from release of information about a Solomon Islands media assistance project it manages for AusAID. The Bureau of Meteorology on the other hand provided enough evidence to convince the Acting Freedom of Information Commissioner to affirm its decision to refuse access to documents concerning a peer review undertaken of a NZ government research agency report on temperature changes.
Australia satisfies the criteria for membership of the Open Government Partnership with a score of 12 out of the 12 points that are relevant in our case. Sixteen is the maximum score.
It may come as a surprise that Australia is not rated on the one remaining criteria worth four points, Fiscal Transparency, because the OGP assessment relies on the ratings published in the International Budget Partnership Open Budget Index.
Australia is not among the 100 countries rated by the IBP. Full Report 2012 - English.
This puzzled me two years ago and still does. Particularly, without being too parochial, as New Zealand is rated No 1 with 93/100 IBP points. Seriously, good on you Kiwis!
The International Budget Partnership says it is "the only independent, comparative, and regular measure of budget
transparency and accountability around the world." This the fourth survey, finds widespread failure of governments to provide sufficient
opportunities for citizens and civil society to engage in budget
processes: "the state of budget transparency around the world is dismal: only a minority of governments publishes significant budget information."
Most countries in the Asian region are included but not Japan(?). The only Pacific island nations surveyed are Papua New Guinea (56/100 points), a big improver, and Fiji (6/100). Many of our major aid recipients are way down the scale.
Some weeks ago when the 2012 Survey appeared I contacted IBP wondering whether the explanation was they just haven't been able to find a local partner. In NZ it is the NZ chapter of Transparency International.
But no, despite our G 20 membership and the chairmanship coming our way next year, our seat on the Security Council and whatever other world standing credentials we roll out, the explanation is simply, we just don't cut much ice - the IBP doesn't operate here, they're stretched for resources etc. Japan and Canada are the only other G20 members in the same boat with us.
Of interest, if/as we move into the OGP world, Warren Krafchik of the IBP is a member of the OGP Steering Committee. Scope for someone to have a quiet chat over coffee sometime about why we should be somewhere near the world 100 mark?
I would think Australia would rate well in the survey if we were assessed, despite the fact that little has been heard of Operation Sunlight since Andrew Murray and Lindsay Tanner departed the national scene.
Elena Mondo Supervisor, Open Budget Initiative replied to my email, explaining the situation as follows:
