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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consideration whether Australia should join the OGP takes years longer than a decision to go to war

Australia's fence sitting on where it stands on the Open Government Partnership continues to attract international interest.

Included in commentary by Toby McIntosh in Washington last week was the response from the Department of Finance to the news, as McIntosh puts it, "that the OGP Steering Committee recently gave Australia until the end of October to indicate its intention to be an active member, or to join Russia as an OGP drop-out":

“The Australian Government is positively inclined towards joining the Open Government Partnership but has yet to make a final decision,” the official said, adding, “The Government intends to form a view as soon as possible and will take as long as necessary.”

As McIntosh received a response and having asked twice in recent weeks without success for answers from the Minister's office, this prompted me to try again, running these questions past the Media Centre:

Has the government responded to the OGP Support Unit following reports of concern reflected in the minutes of the July meeting of the Steering Committee over Australia’s lack of action as a member?

What are the government's intentions regarding the request to “recommit' to the OGP  by the deadline imposed by the Steering Committee, the October Global Summit meeting in Mexico?

Will the government be represented and by whom at the preparatory OGP Asia Pacific Regional Meeting to be held 7–8 September 2015 at Asian Development
headquarters in Manila, Philippines?

If the intention is to proceed with OGP membership, what steps are envisaged for public consultation on a national action plan?

The Department replied today although the response reveals nothing new, and for the public record at least indicates nothing has happened since the same responses were given to questions in Senate Estimates in February.

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.

If the decision is to join, then a national action plan, developed in accordance with the OGP’s guidance<http://www.opengovpartnership.org/how-it-works/action-plans>, will be produced.

In the interim, Australia continues to provide appropriate representatives to observe at relevant OGP meetings, as is occurring currently at the regional meeting in Manila through the attendance of an embassy official, Mr Daniel Featherston, Counsellor Economic.

'Considering' (in a fashion) started when Australia was first asked to join the OGP in August 2011 and started again sometime after the Abbott government came to office two years ago.

In response to a request in recent weeks from the US a decision on whether Australian air force jets will bomb in Syria is expected any day now.

Dark FOI days prompt call for top FOI success stories

Taro Taylor- Wikimedia Commons

Dark days for Freedom of Information here but clouds are gathering elsewhere including the UK where new Justice Secretary Michael Gove is said to have a cutback agenda that extends to introduction of charging for 'thinking time' in the course of a decision.

('Thinking time' charges are a painful FOI reality in all Australian jurisdictions and have been for years. One example, The Canberra Times request this year for documents from Finance going back 12 months that explained delays in completing the $6.4 million renovations project at the Prime Minister's Lodge - $3759 all up including charges for 176 hours to decide what could be released. And the decision? Not in the public interest to release the documents, nor to waive costs. Ah dear.) 

But I digress....
As part of the coverage of the yet to be unveiled cutback agenda in the UK, The Daily Mail published this list of Scandals We Wouldn't Have Known About Without FOI Powers:

 • The MPs expenses scandal would not have been exposed if not for the FoI Act. Discs containing receipts and submissions from MPs to the Parliamentary authorities were being redacted for release under Freedom of Information rules when they were leaked.
  • Graham Knight, the father of an RAF Sergeant among 14 servicemen killed when a Nimrod jet exploded in Afghanistan in 2006, used FoI to discover that the RAF was aware of fuel leak problems with the aircraft.
  • The ‘spider letters’ from Prince Charles to government departments in which he warned about military helicopters in Iraq and lobbied in favour of homeopathy would have remained hidden.
  • More than 1,100 care home deaths were linked to dehydration over a nine-year period and more than 300 deaths to severe malnourishment, according to documents obtained under the Act.
  • An FoI request by the Daily Mail revealed a prisoner was given the right to taxpayer-funded IVF while behind bars by using human rights laws.
  • More than 10,000 criminals escaped prosecution for serious violent assaults by saying sorry in a single year. FoI requests showed the police’s widespread use of ‘community resolutions’.
  • It was found that disgraced peer Lord Janner made three visits to Parliament months after police were told he was too ill to be questioned over child abuse allegations.
  • The Mail revealed how hospitals were paid millions to hit targets for patients who died on the Liverpool Care Pathway, which has now been scrapped.

That prompted thinking about an Australian list. 

The Daily Mail loves 'scandals' but we don't need to be so limited. Your nominations please
  
Australia's Top Disclosures We Wouldn't Know About Without FOI.
Four off the top of my head to start:

Reserve Bank Board minutes published commencing in 2007 following Michael McKinnon's FOI digging going back to 2004.

Exposure of Australia’s first case of foreign bribery as a result of investigations that included FOI by Richard Baker and Nick Mckenzie revealing that Securency, a subsidiary of the Reserve Bank of Australia had paid million-dollar commissions to win global banknote contracts.

Information about breaches of food hygiene standards starting in NSW and extending to other parts of the country (maybe still not everywhere?) following Matthew Moore's FOI campaign.

Revelations about Australian knowledge of, and involvement in detention practices in Iraq and Afghanistan by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, based on documents obtained after a six year FOI battle, raised many questions about policy, accountability and transparency going back to 2003.

Important FOI disclosures or scandals welcome by way of comment, email  peter.timmins1@gmail.com or tweet or direct message @FOIguru

Timely reminder:“Democracy dies behind closed doors.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More from Professor Cole here:

CIA torture revelations reveal transparency and accountability differences as well

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

US reaction

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

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

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

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

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

Publication of incoming government briefs: New Zealand shows the way.

I know there are differences in the type of issues covered.

But following decisions right across government to refuse access to the incoming government briefs prepared for Abbott government ministers last year, the general thrust of which was confirmed by the Australian Information Commissioner on the basis that 'frank and candid', poor petals, required that a brief not be disclosed because public servants wouldn't in that event do their job properly next time, developments in New Zealand provide a sharp contrast.

The State Services Commission has proactively published, with some redactions the incoming government brief provided to all ministers and the brief provided to its incoming minister following the October election. We can only be reasonably confident our equivalents will be publicly available in 28 years.

(Update: There I was thinking this was a big deal when what State Services has done is commonplace In NZ not unusual.)

The government brief outlines thinking about steps to address challenges including

• Getting greater access to complete data sets that will inform effective targeting of effort and investment.
  
• Engaging in a deeper way with New Zealanders over their issues and solutions.
  
• Strengthening New Zealand‟s strong reputation nationally and internationally for operating with integrity and inclusiveness.
  

And the minister's brief includes a reference to a subject government here doesn't talk about publicly: making a real fist of its Open Government Partnership commitments. 

Australia apparently is still 'considering' whether to proceed or not proceed with the previous government's May 2013 notice of intention to join the OGP. It is three years since we were invited, and the membership ranks have since swelled to 64 or 65. As to NZ:

We had some initial ideas about how we can make the greatest contribution to the Government’s plan for New Zealand. We would welcome an opportunity to discuss these ideas with you.

By 2017……

System Stewardship

We will have strengthened the perception of New Zealand as a high integrity country. We have met New Zealand’s Open Government Partnership commitments, put in place a Code of Conduct for Ministerial Advisers and embedded improved information security and privacy practices across the State services.

Meanwhile here Canberra is head down and flat out trying to win support in the Senate for its legislation to abolish the Office of Australian Information Commissioner and remove from the statute book the role of independent monitor, advocate and champion of open government...

NZ OGP National Action Plan panned for poor consultation process

Jorg Hempel

New Zealand initially showed even less interest in the Open Government Partnership than Australia, until UK Prime Minister Cameron had a word with Prime Minister Key in London last September, leading to an application to join in November. 

But it has kicked ahead in a fashion since while we dither along, still 'considering'  three years on.

NZ was represented by a minister at the OGP regional meeting in Bali in May and apparently submitted the required national action plan on 31 July. 

The Plan focuses on the Better Public Services Results programme; the ICT Strategy and Action Plan to 2017, and the New Zealand National Integrity System Assessment. 

I've heard rumbles of dissatisfaction from across the ditch for months with the way the government handled the process.

Last week NZ online news service Scoop commented that the three themes were pre-selected by the government and in the two meetings with the community and voluntary sector that did discuss the plan, participants were presented with these as ‘faits accomplis’:

Meeting invitees gave a strong message that an “Open Government Partnership Action Plan” needed to start from widespread consultation, openness and non-partisan ideas, not a pre-determined, pro-National Party agenda. That was back in April. Subsequently the Cabinet has signed off the plan and sent it to OGP international secretariat for ratification. Aside from the broad themes no-one outside of government has a clue about what the Action Plan contains

Given the use of urgency, low levels of meaningful consultation and increased level of concern expressed by NGOs about their advocacy role and more recently the Dirty politics revelations the Government must realise it is on shaky ground regarding openness and transparency. It has not been open with us about many things and so it’s hard to see how having NZ join up to the Open Government Partnership will be seen as anything more than lipservice. Even the most Pollyanna-ish amongst us might wonder quite what would change with an OGP Action Plan that has been devised by government with minimal public input and signed off in secret.

Open and Shut contacted Dr Michael McCauley Director of the Institute of Governance and Policy Studies (IGPS) and Associate Professor in Public Management at the School of Government at Victoria University for a comment:

There is a lot of truth to the criticism and I think it has been clear from the events that we (IGPS) have run that people have felt disengaged from the process and that consultation needed to be simultaneously deeper and broader.  I warned of this back in an early 2014 issue of Policy Quarterly (pdf) but I think, to be fair, (State Services Commission) would accept such criticism as well.  To be honest, though, SSC can only be held responsible to some degree – they had a small team with limited resources – and the bigger question is the political will behind the whole project. OGP was passed among several agencies until it settled at SSC and, of course, New Zealand was asked to join back when the project was created but the government turned it down at the time.  The important thing, however, is not what’s gone wrong but what can and should go right.   I am usually pretty sceptical of these kinds of initiatives but not only is OGP a genuinely worthy cause – and worthy as an end in itself rather than an instrumental end.  More importantly I’ve seen numerous cases in the Asia Pacific Region as to how OGP has made a difference.   Finally New Zealand is expected to be a leader in this by other countries: and it is genuinely expectation rather than hope.  I am confident, however, that the consultation issues will be solved, not overnight and probably not any time in the next few months but in time for the next Action Plan; there will be a robust and sustainable consultation infrastructure.  In fact there just has to be or else we may as well leave OGP alone.
 

There were plenty of examples in the first wave of OGP national action plans of government grabbing and keeping the ball without much acknowledgement of the civil society players who were supposed to be part of the team. It's not what the OGP rules require.

If, when, Australia takes the step to publicly commit, let's hope for a full, open and meaningful consultation befitting a real open government partnership.

The trust thing-where to from here?

The absence of trust and confidence in politicians, government and institutions is striking.

 The Readers Digest Survey of who is held in high regard for integrity and substance sees politicians ranked 49 of 50 professions, with no politician ranked higher than 68 in a list of 100 public figures. The Prime Minister is at 79. Roughly confirming the Morgan Poll.
in April where 12% of Australians rated Federal (and state) parliamentarians highly for ethics and honesty beating out three of 50 30 professions. The trend line before the Budget according to the Essential Report was that trust in political leadership dropped 13 points since February.

Then there's the Lowy Poll 2014:

"... 60% of Australian adults, and just 42% of 18-29 year-olds say ‘democracy is preferable to any other kind of government’. Only a small majority of the population (53%) choose ‘a good democracy’ over a ‘strong economy’. For those who do not see democracy as the preferable form of government, the strongest reasons are that ‘democracy is not working because there is no real difference between the policies of the major parties’ (45% citing this as a major reason) and ‘democracy only serves the interests of a few and not the majority of society’ (42%)."

Then Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott was on the money in September 2013
when he identified the trust deficit as the biggest deficit facing the nation. But things have got worse not better.

Lack of trust translates to a major governance problem. Government in a democracy occupies a position based on the notion of a public trust. As well lack of trust complicates the making of difficult decisions and government's capacity to see them through.

It is not a unique problem to Australia.

Books are being written about why it is so but among many contributing causes are lack of honesty and consistency, overuse of spin, excessive secrecy, failure to genuinely consult and test ideas, and pre-occupation with short termism and political advantage.

The Oxford Martin Commission report Now for the Long Term explores some of these issues. 

Chair Pascal Lamy visited Australia two weeks ago. Canberra was on his itinerary and he met at least one minister, Andrew Robb, Treasury Secretary Parkinson and officials involved in the G 20 process.

Let's hope Lamy was able to refer them to the Agenda for the Long Term section of the report, page 59 and the recommendations for Innovative, Open and Reinvigorated Institutions that include:

Optimise new forms of political participation, transparency and accountability, whilst amplifying the voices of global citizens. The Commission recommends renewed commitment to transparent government and deeper political engagement...

The report describes the Open Government Partnership as "a particularly welcome development" bringing together government, civil society and private enterprise in member countries to address governance and means to improve transparency, accountability and public participation with independent international oversight of their efforts. 

It's such a good model

The Commission calls for the OGP platform to be adopted by other institutions and governments, and for the platform’s work to be expanded to strengthen coordination between citizens across countries.

Readers will know of Australia's dithering over whether to join the OGP now running without resolution for close to three years. When I checked with the Office of the Minister for Finance this week on the current position before heading off to the C20 Summit in Melbourne:

the government has made no decision to join or withdraw the Labor government's May 2013 notice of intention to join.

Not of its own a decision likely to reverse the trust decline, but the penny should drop sometime that a journey starts with a step in the right direction.

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.

Foot dragging continues over Australian membership of OGP

In the last week the Open Government Partnership has been referred to in a joint statement by President Obama, President Pena Nieto of Mexico and Canadian Prime Minister Harper, and by Secretary of State Kerry and Indonesian government leaders. An Asia Pacific Regional OGP Conference in Indonesia in May has been announced with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to give the keynote. Recently UK, New Zealand and Irish ministers have spoken up publicly about the importance of the OGP.

But here the lofty objectives of the OGP are yet to experience the full warm embrace of an Abbott government minister.

Australia was invited to join in September 2011 and took until May 2013 to respond with an announcement of intention to join in April 2014.

 It's been close to silence since.

The foot dragging over signing on to a multilateral initiative that promotes transparency in government, encourages citizen participation and tackles corruption that has the support of 62 like-minded governments is perplexing. While we are still to enter the starting gate, OGP participating  countries have made over 1000 commitments to make their governments more open and accountable.

OGP participating countries have made over 1,000 commitments to make their - See more at: http://www.opengovpartnership.org/about/news#sthash.mMr2sF2e.dpuf

OGP participating countries have made over 1,000 commitments to make their governments more open and accountable.   - See more at: http://www.opengovpartnership.org/about/news#sthash.mMr2sF2e.dpuf

OGP participating countries have made over 1,000 commitments to make their governments more open and accountable.   - See more at: http://www.opengovpartnership.org/about/news#sthash.mMr2sF2e.dpuf

OGP participating countries have made over 1,000 commitments to make their governments more open and accountable.   - See more at: http://www.opengovpartnership.org/about/news#sthash.mMr2sF2e.dpuf

In Canberra yesterday the top table in Senate Estimates for the Attorney General's portfolio managed a few short answers to questions from The Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon about the current status of Australia's application to join. But as the minions who knew about such things had left the building, they said anything much in the way of detail would have to be taken on notice. 

Those on the receiving end were Australian Information Commissioner Professor McMillan who said he couldn't say as he had no recent formal involvement; Secretary of the Attorney General's Department Roger Wilkins who managed two sentences ("All I can tell you is that it is progressing and there has been some discussion amongst departments. There is some issue about which department should ultimately be charged with taking it forward, but that is about all I know of (sic) the top of my head"); and Attorney General Brandis who after these two efforts and informed by a piece of paper said there had been three inter-agency meetings, one in July and after the September election, in October and November, and a national action plan (a requirement of membership) is "in development." 

When Senator Rhiannon asked about timing and the announced plan to file for membership in April 2014, Mr Wilkins pointed out that April "was not a deadline." 

Seeing that the OGP rules are for the national action plan to be developed in partnership with civil society and there hasn't been a peep heard to date by interested parties on the outside, membership in April 2014 looks out of the question.

Compare and contrast this low key, nay barely visible approach with the recognition elsewhere that the OGP deserves attention at the highest levels of government.

Last week following the annual meeting of the Leaders of North America, President Obama, President Pena Nieto of Mexico and Canadian Prime Minister Harper, who must have had plenty to talk about, included a reference in their Joint Statement to support for the OGP, their commitment to transparency and open government and to promoting democracy, human rights and respect for international law throughout the world.


US Secretary of State Kerry and Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa co-chaired the fourth Joint Commission Meeting of the U.S.-IndonesiaComprehensive Partnership. The US included in a long list of joint endeavours, support for "Indonesia’s chairmanship of the Open Government Partnership in 2014 by expanding engagement with youth and private sector entities with interest in OGP."


Separately, the OGP Asia PacificRegional Meeting was announced and will take place on 6-7 May 2014 in Bali. President Yudihono will deliver the key note address. 

Just a month or so ago Francis Maude UK Minister for the Cabinet office and Chris Tremain New Zealand Minister for Internal Affairs were publicly talking up their OGP plans and Brendan Howlin Ireland's Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform was calling European countries together for an OGP conference in May.

Meanwhile in Canberra, no doubt the matter is progressing through further discussion amongst departments.

Sigh..... 

Open data tick for Australia but information on foreign aid short of the standard

Mixed results for Australia in two reports released in the lead up to the Open Government Partnership Summit in London: a comparative good showing on publication of government data, but just making it into the fair group for transparency in the publication of information on our foreign aid program in accordance with the international standard. One recommendation to lift performance in that area is that Australia's OGP national action plan should include 'stretch commitments' to reach the standard. Would be great to hear from that sector as CSO interest in the OGP sparks up. 

Australia on the international stage, with OGP notes in the bag?

 With Foreign Minister Bishop in New York meeting lots of friends and others and sitting briefly in the chair as President of the Security Council and then to join Prime Minister Abbott for a visit to Jakarta later in the week, somewhere in all the briefing books there must be an item "Australia and the Open Government Partnership"?

Just in case someone asks our intentions, as David Cameron did of Prime Minister Key in London last week. Or better still, because we wish to get in ahead with an assurance that Australia's commitment to join remains despite the change of government, and that the Coalition's silence on the subject to date is of no significance.

Particularly in meetings with the Indonesians given the fact that Indonesia is a co-chair of the OGP with the UK, and will become the lead co-chair after the Steering Committee and Summit meetings in London at the end of the month. And that the issue is managed in Jakarta from the president's office, suggesting it has a high priority there.

The ten foreign policy and other reasons for getting on board with the OGP suggested last December still make sense. 

An eleventh is that explaining an about turn on Labor's announcement in May of intention to join won't go down well in Jakarta, London or Washington, where it is described as President Obama's 'signature governance initiative,' and will lead to head scratching in 56 other capitals as well. 

A twelfth is walking away on an initiative that sees members commit to more transparent, effective and accountable governments with institutions that empower citizens and are responsive to their aspirations would be difficult to square with the Prime Minister's intention to restore trust.

And because as chair of the G20 from December we wouldn't want to be outside the loop on the transparency issues that have been and remain high on that agenda.

So here's hoping that the briefing notes are in the bag and that a strong robust public commitment to stand firm with the OGP is forthcoming.
(Update-seems so)

To be followed by a meaningful partnership with civil society here at home to identify and get cracking on concrete goals that improve the way our democracy works. 



 

OGP looking for Bright Spots

The Open Government Partnership is running a Bright Spots Competition to identify and showcase open government initiatives at the Annual Summit in London in October. 

I'm sure there will be lots of compelling case studies of steps large and small that have moved things along in member countries towards OGP goals-to make government better, more transparent, effective, accountable -- with institutions that empower citizens and are responsive to their aspirations..

Not sure if the fact you are from an intending member is enough to qualify, but prompted by the suggestion that a campaign to get your country to sign up to the OGP might be a Bright Spot, I thought (my version) of the Australian story was worth the requisite 350 words. And a possible gig in London in October. Just dreaming again, sigh.. 

This went off to Washington today:

On 21 September 2011, the day after the OGP was launched in New York, I wrote my first blog post on the subject, querying why 46 countries were represented there but Australia was not.  

After all we had a 100% score on eligibility, espouse the values reflected in the Open Government Declaration and that underpin the partnership, have a long uninterrupted record as a proud democracy with good practices including as an early adopter of Freedom of Information legislation, and promote good, open, transparent government in the Asia Pacific region and elsewhere through our official aid program and in other ways. 

I was flabbergasted when on a visit to Washington in March 2012, Toby McIntosh of Freedom info.org told me the word there was Australia had decided not to join. Passing interest morphed into passionate advocacy.

By May 2013 when the Attorney General announced Australia’s intention to join, I had written 40 blog posts on the subject; lobbied ministers and parliamentarians; utilised the Freedom of Information Act to access documents concerning thinking within government or establish there had been none or not enough; encouraged questions to be asked about the state of play in Senate Committee hearings; and sparked interest among civil society organisations and prominent activists involved with openness and transparency issues.

Good support emerged from within and without government and parliament particularly from former minister and current government senator John Faulkner, a widely respected voice for integrity who spoke up publicly for membership as a high priority.

The Government has said little in the months since the announcement about the process to develop the National Action Plan. In readiness a discussion group has been established that includes interested citizens, academics and leaders of bodies such as Transparency International Australia, the Accountability Roundtable, and Publish What You Pay Australia. A dialogue is underway about how the government-CSO partnership might work best.

Australia is now in pre-election mode with national elections to be held on 7 September. The coalition of the two main opposition parties seems likely to win at this stage. Those parties have not commented publicly on Australia and the OGP but efforts are underway seeking to ensure bipartisan and ongoing support. 

The current intention is that Australia formally present its membership application at the Ministerial meeting in Jakarta in 2014.

It took almost two years for Australia to come to its senses and stand firm and alongside like-minded countries in the OGP. If any lesson is to be learned, it’s the importance of persistence and patience.

Australia has a lot to learn from, and a lot to give others in the partnership.

................................................

No idea what, if any Australian government and non-government presence we might have in London in October. September 7 is a determining factor for the government side, funding, principally, for the other.

Maybe (living in hope as usual) some thought is being given in the corridors in Canberra to ensuring both sides of the prospective Australian partnership put on a reasonable first showing at the OGP?