While our two-soon to be one- national information commissioners battle on working from home....

The UK counterpart is subject to a triennial review, examining whether there is a continuing need for its functions and whether it should continue to operate in its current form; and in Canada the commissioner is under the hammer, although she still has an office to go to, support staff and a budget to get by somehow in the new year. 

On the other hand in New Zealand, the Chief Ombudsman, so far immune is picking up the pace, looking into how agencies and ministers deal with requests for information and asking ministers about 'unwritten' directions to the troops.

UK
"As with all triennial reviews, the review of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) will examine whether there is a continuing need for its functions and whether the organisation should continue to operate in its current form, considering whether services could be provided more effectively and efficiently. If it is determined that there is a continuing need for the organisation in its current form, the review will assess whether the ICO’s control and governance arrangements continue to meet the recognised principles of good corporate governance. The review will also consider the organisation’s structure, efficiency and performance."

(Something along those lines before he reached a conclusion to abolish the office might have helped Attorney General Brandis' case here. The only one to look, Dr Hawke concluded the Office was doing a good job.)


Canada 
Vincent Gogolek writing in the Huffington Post Canada recounts testimony by the information commissioner to a parliamentary committee that the number of complaints her office receives from people being denied access to documents by the federal government has shot up 30 percent over the past year, and that her budget has been reduced by 11 percent over the past four years. Gogolek looks with dismay at the Australian government's attempt to abolish the office altogether, suggesting Canada might at least be confident that the government there wouldn't go that far in an election year.

New Zealand
The New Zealand Chief Ombudsman announced a major review of the practices of government agencies in processing Official Information Act requests, something the Australian Information Commissioneer didn't get around to in four years, although I expect funding constraints not the lack of concern about what goes on were responsible. The aim of the NZ project is to assess the quality and integrity of OIA practice across the public sector and to address any issues that are found.

“The effective operation of the OIA is crucial to our system of open and democratic government, and this review will scrutinise how things are currently operating and set out a framework for systemic improvement where deficiencies are identified.”

In this interview Dame Beverley said in recent months, there had been allegations in the media that OIA processes have been circumvented for a variety of reasons, and that had the potential to erode public confidence in the OIA throughout the core public sector.

Survey documents are going out including to ministers' offices. I liked this question:

Are there current or recent unwritten directives issued by the Minister or senior management to office or agency staff about the operation or implementation of the OIA (including guidance to an agency on notifying or consulting the Minister regarding OIA requests / proposed OIA responses / finalised OIA responses / Ombudsman investigations of OIA complaints)? If yes, please provide details.
 

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...

"New Zealand reaffirms commitment to open government"

Australia should emulate the 'reaffirm' part of that headline. 

As well as the sentiments in the announcement by NZ State Services Minister Paula Bennett that New Zealand formally became a member of the Open Government Partnership, with the publication of its Open Government Partnership (OGP) Action Plan.

“New Zealand has a strong and well respected foundation of open and transparent government, and formally joining the OGP gives us a fantastic opportunity to build on these successes,” Mrs Bennett says. “We rank highly on several integrity measures, including first equal out of 182 countries in Transparency International’s 2013 Corruptions Perceptions Index and first out of 132 countries in the 2014 Social Progress index. “Our work in the OGP and with partner countries will allow us to do even more to deliver openness and integrity, so that New Zealanders can be assured government is responsive to their needs and serves them in the best way possible.” A stakeholder-led advisory group will be established to assist the Government with meeting OGP commitments."

The NZ consultative process and earlier indications of the content of the plan came in for some criticism recently- the establishment of the advisory group may improve the mood.

Published information about NZ and the OGP includes

• New Zealand Open Government Partnership Action Plan
• OGP reviewer feedback (PDF 48k)

And sure to stun the dedicated guardians of the cabinet room at PM&C in Canberra:

• Cabinet Paper Sec(14)42: 'Action Plan for the Open Government Partnership' (PDF 93k)

The Abbott government is still 'considering' whether to proceed with the May 2013 notice of Australia's intention to join. 

You would like to think we could cut and paste the NZ case for membership with a one word substitution:

"The OGP is an international organisation, committed to making governments more open, accountable, and responsive to citizens. The OGP objectives resonate with New Zealand values and with our goals for international, economic and social development. By joining the OGP, New Zealand can continue to build and strengthen our system of open government, while also playing a strong leadership role in the OGP by sharing our experiences and expertise. OGP membership will also strengthen New Zealand’s ties with many countries who participate in the OGP. Joining the OPG also provides a platform for the government to further explore new and innovative ways of working with civil society to deliver better public services.

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.

New Zealand to join OGP

In London following a meeting with Prime Minister Cameron, New Zealand Prime Minister John Key announced

At the request of the UK, New Zealand will formally express its intention to join the Open Government Partnership (OGP) later this year. The UK is the current lead co‑chair of the OGP – a grouping of 58 countries and nine civil society organisations committed to transparent and open government, combatting corruption, and harnessing new technologies. “The OGP’s goals are consistent with New Zealand values and with our goals for international economic and social development, and I was pleased the UK invited us to join,” Mr Key says.

Congratulations!

Hopefully, any day soon the new government here will reiterate Australia's intention to join as announced by the previous government in May. Like NZ:

”Australia shares the values of the Open Government Partnership and we have a wealth of knowledge and experience to share with other nations in the partnership,” Mr Dreyfus said. “We believe that greater openness and accountability in government promotes public participation in government processes and leads to better informed decision-making.

 The UK and Indonesia are the current co-chairs of the OGP.
 

Calling "damage to international relations", with mixed results

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.

NZ not up for major information access reforms

The New Zealand Government has responded to the Law Commission review of the Official Information Act, picking at a few of the 137 recommendations but rejecting the need for major reforms.  

Among the NZ commentariat  No Right Turn who said he would be quite happy if the LC report died quietly in a ditch somewhere and was forgotten, thinks that is pretty much what has happened. Wellington Barrister Steven Price on the other hand had a more positive view about the Law Commission's proposals writing just before the Government response was released.

The full text of the response is ironically, hard to locate but thanks to some expert ferreting by a NZ colleague the link is here.

Of particular interest is the thumbs down given to the proposal for statutory creation of a new oversight office along the lines of our information commissioners. The Ombudsmen are doing fine thanks.

And the big NO to the recommendation that the OIA extend to the Offices of Parliament, Parliamentary Counsel Office, the Office of the Clerk and Parliamentary Service, and the Speaker of the House, in respect of administrative and financial information and excluding any audit, assurance work, inquiry or investigation activity.

"The government does not agree with the Law Commission’s recommendation and supports the status quo.  New Zealand has an open Parliament by international standards and Parliament currently makes a great deal of information available.  Parliament has processes for developing rules around access and use of information and this is more likely to achieve the desired balance between access to information and the proper functioning of Parliament.  This approach is consistent with the approaches taken in the Australian and Canadian federal parliaments and the US Congress. .... the existing scrutiny provided through the Parliamentary estimates and financial review processes is considered appropriate.  This scrutiny is publically accessible and provides transparency in the work and spending of the Offices of Parliament."

Hmm, off the rails a bit there.

The Australian federal parliamentary departments at present are covered by the FOI act as they lament in a submission to the Hawke review. They want coverage cut back - roughly to what the NZ Law Commission recommended. 

That's the situation in Tasmania. 

The Westminster houses of parliament are covered in the UK. So is the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly of Wales and Northern Ireland Assemby. And as I understand, parliaments in Ireland, India, South Africa and Mexico, to list a few more. 

NZ does FOI well and leads the likes of us in many respects. 

But big picture, modernising reforms have gone to the backburner.

NZ sits on OGP as a "low priority" while members soldier on

An application under the Official Information Act via FYI for documents concerning New Zealand consideration of the case for joining the Open Government Partnership has produced this Foreign Ministry briefing note from February 2012.

 Like the brief from Attorney General's in Canberra in May 2012, it cited no arguments against joining, suggesting it was a matter of weighing the cost against the likely criticism for not signing up that would likely follow such a decision. Two recommendations were redacted, so the document isn't quite the full story but the note to the minister recommended that membership should be an overall low priority with a ministerial submission on joining to follow once scope, costs and the risks of membership were understood. As this is the only information held by the ministry, presumably that's where things stand 10 months later.

Meanwhile the minutes of the OGP Steering Committee meeting in London earlier this month refer to the adoption of a Multilateral Partnership Framework that will seek to leverage the capacity of multilateral bodies to support OGP eligibility and action plan implementation - something Australia and NZ wearing various multilateral hats will encounter in those fora; and a decision to expand the Independent Expert Panel by two to ensure greater regional balance – for example, by including Senior Advisors from Asia and Latin America; and a range of pressing financial, resource and other issues that Indonesia and those in the vanguard are facing. 

On additional IEP members, the Criteria and Standards sub-committee will issue an open call for nominations specifically for Senior Advisors from Asia and Latin America, and they will also ask current IEP members for recommendations, as well as draw on any relevant candidates from the last round of nominations. 

You would like to think an Aussie might fit the Asia bill, given Australia in the Asian Century and all that, but alas I'm dreaming.....

Water and wine, trans tasman comparisons of disclosure of ministerial expenses

Another area of expenditure deeply buried here in the various accounts of Federal and state government agencies or ministers' offices and rarely sees the light of day. Nothing publicly that I'm aware of like New Zealand where credit card transactions for ministers and staff are published in a single quarterly publication on-line, together with supporting documentation for purchases.

Ministers McCully and Carr

NZ blogger No Right Turn finds the prospect of disclosure seems to impact behaviour... with the occassional exception. So might we, if we tried it, even if our Foreign Minister Bob Carr, a teetotaller, simply watches what he spends on mineral water:

"I've spent the last hour or so going through the credit card statements, and I'm impressed. The picture that emerges is one of Ministers spending money reasonably and appropriately. There's a few amusing bits - Steven Joyce's lonely snickers bar habit (is he not satisfied?) - but very little really outrageous. Compare this with the pattern of a few years ago when these releases started, and it seems that Ministerial abuse of expenses has decreased significantly. Which both shows the value of such proactive releases, and builds trust in government. The exception, of course, continues to be (Foreign Minister) Murray McCully. He seems incapable of checking into a hotel room without several substantial charges marked "beverage" appearing on the bill (note: this is not drinks with dinner, it is drinks alone). Now, he may have a $50 a night coffee habit. But it reads like he's spending a lot of time in hotel bars drinking our money. Then of course there's the big dinner habit - this time round, an NZ$1200 dinner for 7 in Bali, including NZ$600 for four bottles of wine (and its Australian wine, at that). He hasn't beaten his NZ$233 record for a single bottle, but the average price of those is still well beyond what is reasonable, even given his role.
Proactive release of expenses relies on Ministers having a sense of shame to improve behaviour. But McCully doesn't. He's an uncorrectable recidivist, and its time we dispensed with his services."

Open Government Partnership plans throw up important ideas, even for by-standers

The Open Government Partnership-Australia and New Zealand do not belong-now has 57 members, with Finland the latest to sign on.(By the by, they are seeking nominations for an International Expert Panel, to oversee its Independent Reporting Mechanism so interesting to see if we have takers-country OGP membership is not a prerequisite.)

A membership requirement based on the idea that everyone has something to learn, and scope for improvement, is to lodge a national action plan

Global Integrity in Washington has just published this analysis of the plans submitted by 45 member countries. A lot of what they say is instructive even for those sitting on the sideline.

Open Data' and 'E-Government' are the most popular commitment categories across the Partnership. accounting for nearly a third of all open government planned activities. Prompting this comment by the author:

It is always encouraging to see countries strive to modernize the machinery of government, but the preponderance of information technology projects in national action plans deserves further consideration. The appetite for neat technological fixes to complex problems shouldn’t eclipse the need for politically difficult but fundamental reform. Eventually all technological solutions run into the limits imposed by the institutional, legal, political, and socio-cultural contexts in which they are embedded. Therefore, essential reforms should be encouraged from the outset to alleviate the unique structural constraints prevalent in particular country contexts. Doing that would expand the frontier of possibility so open data and related technologies can maximize their potential. (Read Tom Slee and David Eaves’ exchanges for an incisive analysis on the promise and limits of open data.) Case in point, there is no technological shortcut to greater judicial transparency in India. Ultimately even the most vibrant open data community and efficient judicial records management system will be undermined by the lack of legislation mandating asset disclosures across the judiciary.

'Citizen Engagement' (not one of Australia's strongpoints)  and 'Access to Information' were the other major categories of activities.

Observations about what's not in the plans also resonate:

 The missing link?

Private sector issues are conspicuously underrepresented in country action plans. Only 44 tags cover issues such as public private partnerships, regulations, private sector transparency, and corporate social responsibility initiatives, to name a few. For the OGP to truly become a broad-based multi-stakeholder initiative, commitments should address the openness of the private sector especially in crucial sectors such as extractives and financial services. Moreover, the Partnership must carve a meaningful role for private sector organizations. It would be a terrible waste of opportunity to ignore the resources and capabilities that the private sector can bring to the table especially considering their active participation in development projects at the behest of governments and international organizations. The yawning gap in awareness and enthusiasm among private sector companies for OGP will need to be addressed strategically by measures that go beyond merely engaging them as suppliers for the Networking Mechanism.

Legislate, don’t “innovate”

Another blind spot in action plans is the marginalization of commitments dealing with the legislative and judicial branches of government. Most commitments focus on government departments under the purview of the executive branch, privileging “innovative” solutions like e-government over the more fundamental and politically fraught legislative and judicial reforms, which are key if the OGP is to embody the grandest notions of open government. Worryingly few commitments are ambitious enough to tackle harder, “stretch” issues such as campaign finance, public asset disclosure, financial services sector transparency, etc., which require the passage of broader statutory reforms. As the Partnership develops, country governments will need to tackle crucial institutional challenges through legislation so the change in the culture of government sought by the OGP can firmly take hold.
There were other surprises as well: Despite the financial crisis giving way to a long tail of persistent recessions globally, not a single country directly commits to opening up financial institutions or services. Similarly, only 10 activities explicitly relate to extractive industries and natural resource issues. One would think that easy access to soft standards like the EITI—with the United States joining as a recent prominent signatory—would make these commitments more attractive for countries to include in their national action plans.

New Zealand Law Commission completes FOI review

The New Zealand Law Commission today released the final report, The Public’s Right to Know: Review of the Official Information Legislation, concluding its 2009 reference. The report evaluates the Official Information Act 1982 and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 in the light of 30 years experience and changing times.

(Media Release).

The report reinforces the main principles of the Act but makes 137 recommendations including measures to encourage more proactive publication, improving operational processes, bolstering the leadership role and functions of the ombudsmen and ahem, attention Attorney General Roxon who may be still intending to fix an "anomaly" here, that the parliamentary departments be covered by the OIA.

I'll leave commentary to the kiwis-the government has welcomed the report but that's all so far. (Update: See No Right Turn-"An appalling conclusion"- among other things, lamenting the absence from the debate of OIA users. Know the feeling.)

Some of the 137 recommendations that attract the eye this side of the ditch include:

Kiwis show incoming government briefs

And show us up. What a contrast. Just over two months after the election, New Zealand Prime Minister John Key yesterday posted online a consolidated list of briefings to incoming ministers, with links to each briefing document. Not that disclosure of the briefs is anything new in NZ-it's been accepted as routine for years, as has disclosure of cabinet material.

I haven't looked at the content ,and material has been redacted from the briefs, in some cases such as Foreign Affairs, controversially. While many of our federal agencies, led by Treasury got onto the front foot with significant pro-active disclosure of briefs following the 2010 election, government leaders in the states that have held elections in recent times, South Australia, Victoria and NSW, chose to hide behind an FOI cabinet document set up, and leave it to applicants slug it out.

At least reasons given for the need for confidentiality in Victoria last week would have given the Yes Prime Minister team, currently playing in Melbourne ,some good local lines-release would ''delay the operation of effective government in Victoria,'' damage government's relationship with the public service, and mislead the public. Sir Humphrey's best of course was "Minister, you can be open or you can have government but you can't have both."

New Zealand law acknowledges privacy right in publication of private information

And they live to tell the tale, believe it or not.

The issue of a right to sue for beach of privacy wasn't mentioned in the Stage 4 report of the New Zealand Law Commission released this week. The subject was addressed in the Stage 3 report last year (Chapter 7). To summarise, New Zealand law recognises a tort for invasion of privacy, it applies to unjustified publication of private information, and rarely arises in court ( four times in recent years). NZ law doesn't so far recognise a cause of action for a more broadly defined invasion of privacy. The commission decided that because of their interconnected nature, the two should be left to development or further development, through the common law. (The Australian Law Reform Commission has recommended legislation to cover both. The government proposes three years later to encourage talk about it, sometime soon.) 

New Zealand privacy law review

The New Zealand Law Commission this week completed its review of privacy law with the publication of 'Review of the Privacy Act 1993: Review of the Law of Privacy Stage 4' , the fourth and final report on the reference.  Significant recommendations for government action on matters we have been dithering about include augmentation of the Privacy Commissioner’s powers, improvements in the complaints process and mandatory notification when personal information is lost or otherwise compromised (for example, through computer hacking), where the breach is sufficiently serious.

On other topical issues on this side of the ditch, I take it from the absence of any reference that political parties are not exempt from the NZ Privacy Act. The commission also recommended continuation of the media exemption. (As did the Australian Law Reform Commission in a little discussed recommendation in its 2008 report, while calling for action to ensure privacy protections are adequate and that media organisations do more than give lip service to principles designed to achieve this.) The NZ commission reported:

NZ red books published; red faces anyone?

Anonymous, without even trying to rub any local noses in claims about our open government practices, has brought to attention the New Zealand Government webpage containing the set of briefings for incoming ministers published in December 2008. There might be a difference in content-the briefing released publicly for the Prime Minister is straight down the line about the department with little about issues that need to be addressed, although the couple of others that I looked at contain more along these lines- but Anonymous has made the point without the slightest hint of the hype that sometimes crops up in making trans tasman comparisons. Anonymous could have but didn't also refer to the NZ practice of publishing (admittedly selectively) cabinet documents, for example this recent paper summarising  climate change initiatives and proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector, or other papers identified in this google search. Thanks Anonymous-whatever side of the ditch you are on.

Hat tip to Defence

Further to the comment last week that a real sign of change in the transparency equation would be a shift in attitude in Defence and Treasury, hat tip to Air Chief Marshall Houston for this announcement yesterday

"..when a civilian casualty incident is confirmed or when a credible allegation is substantiated, Defence will issue a public statement. After the allegation or incident has been appropriately reviewed through internal and/or external mechanisms, the findings of these reviews will be publicly released.Under our new processes, all credible civilian casualty claims and incidents will be publicly reported. It is vital that in the event of an alleged or actual civilian casualty that there are transparent, consistent and robust processes in place.During the past twelve months, the ADF has investigated 13 incidents. Of these, we have held a media event or issued a media release—announcing either an inquiry, the results of the inquiry, or both—for seven of these incidents. I will now outline the remaining six for you."

And so on. One swallow and all that, but a positive step nonetheless.

By the way, the Crikey article that started this stream now includes some interesting comment, particularly from Kathleen Fisher about how the NZ Treasury is in the vanguard there on transparency and seems proud to have advice to government on public display. If you are a reader Kathleen, would love to hear from you.

Parliament, transparency and accountability.

No jurisdiction in Australia has yet acted to bring parliament as an institution under the Freedom of Information umbrella. The latest best practice model, Queensland's draft Right to Information bill, specifically excludes the Legislative Assembly.

The Australian Law Reform Commission 1995 Open Government report recommended the Commonwealth houses of parliament be subject to FOI. So as we have been led to believe, we can expect to see something from the Government in 2009 about the recommendations in that long ignored report, maybe we will see a breakthrough soon.

To take things one step further, just imagine the jump into the 21st Century if things like the register of members interests was up on line!

In New Zealand the issue of transparency and parliament has cropped up again recently.The Dominion Post in this editorial about the problems of access to government information, says "the new Government should break with.. cynical tradition and agree to subject Parliament to the (Official Information) act, too, something even the prickly previous Speaker, Margaret Wilson, cautiously advocated last year."

Thanks to Rick Snell for the lead.

By the way, the register of interests of members of parliament in New Zealand is on-line and accessible here.

FOI delivers big weekend stories

Two big Freedom of Information disclosure stories over the weekend. In New Zealand, the Herald reported that a letter from a former undercover policeman to the Chief Justice, released under the Official Information Act, includes a claim that he lied in testimony in more than 150 cases that ended with people sentenced to terms in prison.

In the UK documents now over 10 years old , released to the Sunday Telegraph after a two and a half year Freedom of Information battle reveal that contrary to what was claimed at the time, Tony Blair acted almost immediately after a meeting with Bernie Ecclestone, who had donated a million pounds to the Labour Party, to get ministers cracking on ways to exempt Formula 1 from the ban on cigarette advertising . This from the editorial

"Documents obtained by The Sunday Telegraph under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) nevertheless show conclusively that while Mr Blair may have had many political virtues, being straight with the public was not one of them.......It is a serious indictment of the way FOI operates that it should have taken Christopher Hastings, our reporter, more than two years to obtain the relevant documents. We wonder what other truths the guardians of "freedom of information" are protecting from public scrutiny until they can no longer harm the Government."

On the homefront media reports over the weekend based on Freedom of Information releases included
Council bus drivers flout law
Big banks ignored sub-prime troubles
AFP helps with death cases
Premier John Brumby spent $78905 on US trip
Consumers to gain loan watch website

Media almost missed MPs privately sponsored travel

Most observers (including me) were surprised at developments last week that revealed it was commonplace for members of parliament to accept sponsored travel from private interests. The hot issue was the revelation that the Prime Minister when Opposition Spokesman on Foreign Affairs had accepted travel paid by Beijing AustChina for a number of trips to China and other destinations such as the US, UK and Sudan. Other frontbenchers now ministers such as the Treasurer and the Minister for Foreign Affairs also took advantage of this generosity.

The Prime Minister's response was that as the Opposition had no funds for such travel, there was nothing untoward in all this and details had been included at the time in his returns provided for the Parliament's register of interests.

It sounds like the media wasn't paying much attention to what was in these returns, and the paid trips only came to light when Crikey.com ran the story a couple of weeks ago.

At present the returns and the register are available for public inspection during business hours at Parliament House Canberra.

This isn't good enough. As the headline on the Canberra Times article mentioned above, this is everybody's business. We shouldn't be dependent on the media alone to scrutinise the interests declared by members of parliament. This sort of stuff should be published on the web as a matter of routine. Just as it is in Scotland where this website includes a link to the current return of interests by each member of the Scottish Parliament. Or as it is in NZ where the latest annual return for all members is on the web. Or as it is in the US Senate where a database of all approved travel paid for by private interests is available for all to see.

We shouldn't have to plan a trip to Canberra to see who has been 'generous' in helping our parliamentarians see the world. It's another initiative that should appeal to any government interested in improved standards of openness and transparency.

I haven't looked but presume we have the same blinkered approach to the publication of the declaration of interests of state and territory MPs.

NZ shows the lead on privacy and public registers

The New Zealand Law Commission has published a paper on public registers as the second stage of its Privacy Review, suggesting that the statute that creates a register to be open for public inspection should also address issues about any limitation on the use of information, and associated issues such as publication on the web. It lists over 100 such registers in New Zealand and recommends that a year long review be undertaken to examine what is contained in them and what, if any limitations should be imposed on use and access.

The Australian Law Reform Commission Discussion Paper on Privacy released in September last year had little to say about this issue (in the section dealing with "Generally available publications" 8.29) probably because the Federal Government has relatively few public registers. Most such registers in Australia fall within state/territory and local government responsibility. In New Zealand with two tiers of government things are a bit different.

In NSW and perhaps in other states as well, there is still a lot of messiness about what constitutes a public register, and the appropriateness of publication on the web. Presumably an issue for consideration by the NSW Law Reform Commission which has been looking at privacy since April 2006. I'm sure they are busy down there, but in a letter in May 2006 the Commission said it was:

"planning to publish a consultation paper by December 2006. In this paper, the Commission will set out details of the scope of existing privacy laws in NSW, and seek to identify any problems or shortcomings with the current law".

We're still waiting but the Commission has a leg up on the range of issues concerning public registers outlined by the NZ Law Commission

Thanks to PogoWasRight for the lead.