Sunlight shone on Northern Territory prison practices leads to a Royal Commission

How the damning material in videos about the treatment of young boys in the Northern Territory Don Dale Youth Detention Centre came into the hands of ABC Four Corners is not known but with a Royal Commission to investigate the system all may/will be revealed in due course.

 

The public record includes The NT Children's Commissioner Don Dale Youth Detention Centre Report to Minister September 2015 pdf that provides details of one of the worst instances of mistreatment but not the videos. 

 

Almost certainly the video footage wasn't offered up by those responsible for the system or delivered on a plate via the Information Act 2002.

 

If someone on the inside thumbed through the Public Interest Disclosure Act beforehand he/she would know it provides protections for reporting through official channels but none for public disclosure to the media or anyone else for any reason, falling short of what is regarded as best practice. 

 

A look further to the Northern Territory Criminal Code Act Schedule 1 Clause 76 would remind that unlawful communication of confidential information could get you three years in another detention centre. 

 

And there is no available defence to a charge such as absence of harm or the importance of disclosure in the public interest:

Disclosure of official secrets
(1) Any person who, being employed in the public service or engaged to do any work for or render any service to the government of the Territory or any department or statutory body thereof, unlawfully communicates confidential information coming to his knowledge because of such position is guilty of an offence and is liable to imprisonment for 3 years.
 (2) If he does so for purposes of gain he is liable to imprisonment for 5 years. 

A provision in similar terms is S 70 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act.  

Recommendations for repeal and reform first floated in 1991 reinforced in 2009, have been ignored by governments since. 

Review of information access law in NSW grinds on, missed deadline notwithstanding

This post in March commented on the slow, closed door approach to review of open government legislation in NSW and elsewhere.

The NSW Parliament imposes deadlines but they pass... and pass.

The Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 and the Government Information (Information Commissioner) Act 2009 include a requirement for a statutory review to be undertaken by the Minister administering the act "as soon as possible after the period of 5 years from the date of assent to this Act" with a report to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 12 months after the end of the period of 5 years.

The review is to determine whether the policy objectives remain valid and whether the terms of the Acts remain appropriate for securing these objectives. 

The date of assent for both acts was 26 June 2009, the date of commencement 1 July 2010.

Five years after the date of assent takes us to 26 June 2014. A period of 12 months after the end of 5 years for the report to be tabled means the deadline was 26 June 2015.

Shadow Attorney General Paul Lynch in a Question on Notice on 3 May 2016 asked the Attorney General "when the review would be completed." Attorney General Gabrielle Upton on 7 June answered (2944) "The review is currently being carried out and a report will be provided in due course." 

No report has been tabled as at 26 July 2016.

In May, in a welcome development the attorney general's department invited me and a few others to a roundtable, informing invitees that the department was interested in input into the review from outside government as most of the 80 submissions received had come from government agencies and local councils.  

Participants had no input into the agenda but a couple of hours chat ensued about the issues the department wanted to talk about-something at least.
  
Thirteen months and counting for a review report to be tabled isn't too bad when you look at deadlines listed by Justice as Reviews in Progress. The report on the review of the Workplace Surveillance Act 2005 was due no later than June 2011 and for the Defamation Act 2005, October 2011.

One of these days.....

Five time acting appointment for information commissioner position: what to make of that?

Attorney General Senator Brandis led the unsuccessful two year battle to abolish the Office of Australian Information Commissioner that ended in May 2016 when the government announced it would not proceed, finally recognising the weight of numbers in the Senate that favoured an independent watchdog to keep an eye on information access practices.
 
Now reappointed, the Attorney General according to ZDnet will appoint Timothy Pilgrim for the fifth time as Acting Australian Information Commissioner next week
 
The office operated from January to June 2015 with two of the three commissioner positions parliament established when it created the office, and since that time with one.
 
Senator Brandis told Senate Estimates (Q&A pp 42-44) in May this year the decision in  2014 to abolish the office was a 'good economy measure-and we haven't changed our mind."
 
Following the election, numbers of those in the Senate who have a different view than the Attorney General certainly won't be less and maybe more, so abolition of the office isn't on the cards.
 
However executive government has control over the budget and the appointment of commissioners. 

As Senator Brandis in Opposition in 2009 said 

"..The true measure of the openness and transparency of a government is found in its attitudes and actions when it comes to freedom of information. Legislative amendments, when there is need for them, are fine, but governments with their control over the information in their possession can always find ways to work the legislation to slow or control disclosure...."

Attitudes and actions on display include the Attorney General presiding over two years of uncertainty about whether the office of the independent watchdog had a future, adding that he hasn't changed his mind and it should be abolished if he had his way, continuing the practice of acting appointments to run the show with only one of three top positions filled, a squeeze on the budget for the office, and maintaining silence as public service leaders disparaged freedom of information and went public in calling on government to legislate for tighter guarantees of confidentiality for advice.

According to the Prime Minister takeaways from the close election result are that the public is disillusioned with government, politicians and the major parties, and restoring trust is a priority. 

Different attitudes and actions - that positively promote transparency and accountability - might help.

A messy election outcome could bring open, transparent government in out of the dark

It's still up in the air as to who governs - and therefore gets to call most of the shots - and perhaps what the successful major party leader will have to agree to in order to form a government. 

Then on an ongoing basis, there is uncertainty about the constraints or influences that will apply to the government policy and legislative agendas because of numbers in the House and Senate.

Transparency, accountability, public integrity, citizen participation, all elements of good government, hardly rated a mention on the campaign hustings.

But one welcome outcome from the current mess is that three major players, Labor, the Greens and NXT have more open, transparent government on their list of priorities. 

In contrast to the Coalition which offered nothing in this space during the election campaign other than open data and more digital services. Those new commitments came on top of the Turnbull government decision to join the Open Government Partnership, a decision so far not fleshed out with the required ambitious commitments to “promote transparency, empower citizens, fight corruption, and harness new technologies to strengthen governance.” 

EFF Designer Hugh D"Andrade

Nick Xenophon on ABC AM this morning:

Nick Xenophon, you're the only potential kingmaker to say that you're willing to strike a formal agreement with either side to form a minority government. The others have ruled it out so far. Why are you open to it?

NICK XENOPHON: Because if you run for election with a particular agenda about saving jobs, about strengthening manufacturing and farming jobs, about tackling predatory gambling and making governments accountable, if there's an opportunity to achieve that agenda with either side of politics, particularly if you come from the political centre, then it's an opportunity you should take up.....And when it comes to government accountability the fact that whistleblowers in this country aren't protected, that there is a real issue about the mechanisms of government with our freedom of information law and the like, which shows that we really need to have government to be more open, more transparent, and I think these are issues that need to be debated and discussed.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Is this result ultimately a necessarily a recipe for chaos?

NICK XENOPHON: No, it's not. It can be a recipe for cautiously having a framework in place that leads to better government, more accountable government, and I would like to think a greater confidence in our political institutions if you have those reforms, if you have greater transparency in government processes, if there is more accountability.

Nick Xenophon has runs on the open transparent government board

Predicting the outcome of the Senate election is beyond me but apart from the Coaltion, Labor and The Greens, the Nick Xenophon Team is sure to be part of the new mix.

Senator Nick Xenophon has spoken up and often on open transparent government, whistleblower protection and other issues such as a national anti corruption commission, political donations, full timely disclosure of use of parliamentary entitlements....

He is one of the few parliamentarians to even mention the Open Government Partnership.

Here is what the NXT has to say prior to the election on Saturday:

(Responses awaited to questions asked/commitments sought by Accountability Roundtable, Transparency International Australia and Electronic Frontiers Australia)
 
We stand for:
Honest and accountable government
Looking after the national interest - not vested interests.

Our core focus is:
Predatory Gambling
Australian Made & Australian Jobs
Government & Corporate Accountability

"Every thing we do as a team is about ensuring governments are open, transparent and accountable. They should be there to serve us - not us to serve them. Corporations must accept the social contract they have with the community.

We want transparency and accountability in all walks of life. Politicians must be open and up front with the Australian people. And governments should deliver value-for-money for the services you deserve. Australians who speak out against corrupt practices deserve to be protected. Corporations - particularly multi-nationals - must pay their fair share of taxes."

Principles: Government Accountability

"Politicians must be open and up front with the Australian people. Government's primary role is to provide public infrastructure and services and to drive both national economic growth and personal growth. The public have the right to expect that governments will deliver services efficiently and fairly without unnecessary waste and duplication. Australians who speak out against corrupt practices deserve to be protected.

Examples of what needs to be done:
Establish a national anti-corruption commission
Ensure politician entitlements and claims are reported in a timely and transparent way
Put in place whistleblower legislation that protects the informant and compensates them for any loss of income due to their actions
Government services (federal, state, local) must be delivered quickly and efficiently and be fully accountable to the public
Review duplicated services at a federal, state and local government level and determine the most appropriate entity to deliver these services."

Australian Greens say the right thing on open transparent government

Election Initiatives
Digital Rights Commissioner- "an independent Human Rights Commissioner for digital rights, to advocate for the online safety, accessibility, privacy and security of all Australians."

Digital Democracy
Trial a variety of digital platforms to increase participation in democratic processes.

Democratic processes and institutions urgently need rejuvenation. Technology has made it easy for ideas to be widely circulated and debated, and for support and interest to be easily gauged. The ability to directly influence legislation and debate will strengthen participation in the political process and increase the legitimacy of the parliament.

Use interactive technology to facilitate public participation in annual government budget-setting to determine priorities for new infrastructure and services as well as revenue raising measures.

Strengthen links between the community and the parliament. Ideas can be raised on an online platform, and if enough support is gathered, the idea must be debated in the parliament.

Encourage participation in treaty-making and decisions about going to war. These policies affect the whole country for generations and the community deserves a say. Technology has made it possible for people to have informed opinions about these complex matters, and to have their opinions heard.

Move legislation that will require all government departments to proactively release information including their budgets and contracts, publishing the information in an easily searchable format.

Everyone should be able to have a say on the contents of a human rights bill. Technology can facilitate crowd-sourcing ideas and debate. Using a platform like those found in The GovLab would give all Australians ownership over the process to draft a human rights bill. This will help to increase the legitimacy of the final bill in the eyes of the community.

Statements in lead up to election
Political donation reform package 
Push for national integrity commission 
Extension of whistleblower protection
 
Responses to questions Electronic Frontiers Australia

Open Government Partnership
Do you support Australia’s involvement in the Open Government Partnership, which Prime Minister Turnbull recommitted Australia to in November 2015?
Yes, though it is the Greens view that the government can and should do much more to make Australia a leader in the area of open government.

Office of the Australian Information Commission
Do you support sufficient and long term resourcing for the functions of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, including the appointment of the three statutory Commissioners (Information, Privacy and Freedom of Information –at present these roles are held by one person)?
Yes, the Greens advocated for the OAIC to be exempt from cuts, and for the return to proper funding arrangements.

Addendum: Responses to questions infoaus.net

Privacy: 94/100 in Australian Privacy Foundation rating. See Response.

From Policy Platform 2015 

Constitutional Reform and Democracy 

1. A strong Senate that can always act as a house of review.
2. That each state and territory to have at least one proportionately-elected parliamentary chamber.
3. Increased independence of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate.
4. Electoral reforms that would enable:
   1. all Australian citizens over the age of 16, including those who are incarcerated, to be eligible to vote;
   2. proportional representation in the House of Representatives and local government;
   3. fixed terms of Parliament;
   4. amendment of section 44 of the Constitution to allow any public servant, and Australian citizens with dual nationality, to stand for election to Federal Parliament;
   5. electoral funding reform that provides for:
   1. public funding of political parties and candidates for election campaigns and for the administration of political parties, to be set at a level that ensures proper democratic participation by voters and reduces corporate influence on political decisions;
   2. bans on political donations from for-profit corporations;
   3. caps on individual political donations (excluding bequests) and donations from not-for-profit organisations;
   4. caps on electoral expenditure by parties and candidates and strict limits on third party expenditure; and
   5. continuous, comprehensive public disclosure of political donations and funding on a public website.
   6. optional preferential voting in the Senate, and opposes the reintroduction of group voting tickets;
   7. the removal of any requirement for voters to produce proof of identity when voting;
   8. strong uniform national political donations laws; and
   9. the simplification of electoral enrolment, including the use of online and automatic means, and same-day enrolment at a polling place.
5. For a period of at least two years following their term, Ministers and their senior staff not to be engaged in a private enterprise which raises a conflict or particular benefit from their role and connections developed as a Minister or senior member of staff.
6. A reduction in the deposit required to stand for election to Parliament to remove financial barriers to democratic participation.
7. Australia to be declared a republic with an Australian citizen as head of state.
8. Australia, and state and territories, to have flags that reflect an independent Australia.
8. Increased independence of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate.
9. Electoral reforms that would enable:
   1. all Australian citizens over the age of 16, including those who are incarcerated, to be eligible to vote;
   2. proportional representation in the House of Representatives and local government;
   3. fixed terms of Parliament;
   4. amendment of section 44 of the Constitution to allow any public servant, and Australian citizens with dual nationality, to stand for election to Federal Parliament;
   5. electoral funding reform that provides for:
   1. public funding of political parties and candidates for election campaigns and for the administration of political parties, to be set at a level that ensures proper democratic participation by voters and reduces corporate influence on political decisions;
   2. bans on political donations from for-profit corporations;
   3. caps on individual political donations (excluding bequests) and donations from not-for-profit organisations;
   4. caps on electoral expenditure by parties and candidates and strict limits on third party expenditure; and
   5. continuous, comprehensive public disclosure of political donations and funding on a public website.
   6. optional preferential voting in the Senate, and opposes the reintroduction of group voting tickets;
   7. the removal of any requirement for voters to produce proof of identity when voting;
   8. strong uniform national political donations laws; and
   9. the simplification of electoral enrolment, including the use of online and automatic means, and same-day enrolment at a polling place.
10. For a period of at least two years following their term, Ministers and their senior staff not to be engaged in a private enterprise which raises a conflict or particular benefit from their role and connections developed as a Minister or senior member of staff.
11. A reduction in the deposit required to stand for election to Parliament to remove financial barriers to democratic participation.
12. Australia to be declared a republic with an Australian citizen as head of state.
13. Australia, and state and territories, to have flags that reflect an independent Australia.

Community Participation Policy 


The Australian Greens want:

1. Community organisations to be able to participate in public debate without fear of adverse consequences.

2. Marginalised groups to be provided with support and resources enabling them to participate in consultation and deliberation processes.

3. To enable comprehensive participation by community groups in consultation and deliberative processes. Government should provide such groups adequate time and financial assistance where required.

4. Consultation and deliberation processes to be open to independent review to evaluate their effectiveness and recommend improvement to such processes.

5. Governments to provide free and timely information to citizens.

6. Strong Freedom of Information (FOI) laws that exempt community groups and individuals from fees for material gained under FOI.

7. A well-resourced, independent statutory agency to oversee freedom of information requests and appeals.

8. Strong whistle-blower protection legislation.

9. Stronger parliamentary and public scrutiny of government funded programs to enhance transparency and accountability

10. Support for participatory deliberative methods or processes, where appropriate, that increase levels of interaction between decision makers and the public.

ALP has a lot to say, quietly, about transparency and open government

It just appears to have chosen not to say much about these issues during the eight week campaign.




Australian Labor Party 100 Positive Policies:

Greater Budget Transparency  
-a bigger more public role for Parliamentary Budget Office.

National Information Policy
Published in December 2015 includes passing now outdated references to Office of Australian Information Commissioner and Open Government Partnership.
Recounts Labor initiatives in government prior to 2013 including Cutler Reportand Gov 2.0 Taskforce that "laid much of the groundwork for Australia’s current data infrastructure (eg data.gov.au)" 

In summary:

Pursue a new, national reform agenda - National Information Policy - to be pursued through a cross-sector Independent Data Council.

Establish an Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI) modelled on the data platform in operation in New Zealand that combines anonymised information from a range of organisations (eg health, education, crime data) to offer insights to policy makers and researchers.

Identify open data Catalyst projects in strategic priority areas that could be championed by the Independent Data Council for early wins.

Establish a National Centre for Data Analytics which would act as a central source of data-analysis expertise for the federal government, providing expert support to its departments and agencies. The centre would sit within Digital Transformation Office.
 
(Responses awaited to questions asked/commitments sought by Accountability Roundtable and Transparency International Australia.)

Statements during campaign

“A Shorten Labor government will restore integrity to Australia’s political donation system,” said shadow special minister of state Brendan O’Connor “by lowering the thresholds for disclosure and banning foreign and anonymous donations. 

Privacy: 19/100 points in Australian Privacy Foundation ranking. The Foundation notes
Labor provided a Response, which in a number of respects was positive.
 
ALP National Platform adopted by the 2014 National Conference

In summary:  
Open Government Partnership
"Labor commits to joining and fully participating in the Open Government Partnership."

Public integrity/Anti-Corruption
Ensure the development and implementation of a national anti-corruption plan; introduce whistleblower protection across the private sector; undertake procurement reform; legislate to require public disclosure of political donations over $1000; seek to limit the level of federal campaign expenditure through the introduction of spending caps; review the existing Commonwealth integrity institutions "to adequately capture a national system that meets international best practice with regard to integrity"
 
Access to Information- Committed to preserve and strengthen the Office of Australian Information Commissioner; review the operation of Freedom of information and pursue further reforms if necessary. "Labor is committed to the principles of open government. Labor commits to "entrenching open government principles in the culture and practices of the Australian Public Service."

Relevant extracts from the Platform

Chapter 1: Labor’s enduring values…
12. We stand for integrity and transparency in government and honesty in Labor, with no tolerance for corruption.

Chapter 10: Strong democracy and effective government
The contemporary challenge
…
14. Labor will foster a culture of integrity within Commonwealth public institutions – a culture of openness and honesty, transparency and accountability, with the highest ethical standards and zero-tolerance for corruption. Labor will enhance public confidence in public administration by supporting the Australian National Audit Office, the Australian Public Service Commission, Parliamentary Estimates, the Commonwealth Ombudsman and other integrity measures which create this culture of integrity.
…
16. Labor will continue to promote transparency and accountability by maintaining and promoting a transparent culture across Australian Government agencies and will continue to support robust mechanisms for Public Interest Disclosure, Freedom of Information and mechanisms for receiving, investigating and prosecuting complaints concerning alleged corruption in public office or administration.
 
17. Labor is committed to observance of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption and will ensure the development and implementation of a national anti- corruption plan.

18. Labor will ensure more effective international engagement on anti-corruption matters including by joining the Open Government Partnership.

19. Labor has established whistleblower protection in the public sector. Labor will introduce whistleblower protection across the private sector.

20. Labor recognises the importance of corruption prevention and education as integrity building measures in addition to corruption investigation, detection and enforcement. In Government Labor will review the existing mechanisms for receiving, investigating and prosecuting complaints concerning alleged corruption in public office or administration to ensure we have the most efficient and effective arrangements in place. Labor will ensure that all bodies that have special powers to inquire, investigate, and make findings in relation to alleged corruption, are required to have regard to the rules of evidence and natural justice.

21. In office Labor established a Code of Conduct for Ministers and their staff. Ministers, staff and all members of Parliament should follow clear standards relating to their behaviour, contact with lobbyists, receipt of any gifts, and disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest which may affect them carrying out their public duty.
…
33. Labor will:
· Ensure government procurement delivers world-class public services, through fair and open procurement processes free of corruption and discrimination;

· Ensure that a robust objective public interest test occurs in all cases. The test must take into account social and environmental outcomes, including access to and quality of services, impact on regional areas and on local jobs, privacy provisions, risks and consequences, the protection of workers’ wages and conditions, and the cost and benefits to the public; and


· Lead on sustainability and ethical procurement practices, including requiring all companies that tender for Government contracts in the TCF industry hold Ethical Clothing Australia accreditation.
…
Reforming electoral law


51. Labor is committed to the fair, open and transparent operation of our electoral system and to the essential democratic principle that every person should have the right to full participation in it.


52. Labor will ensure all Australians, and particularly first-time voters, people from non-English speaking backgrounds, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, people in remote locations and young people are not excluded from the electoral system.


53. Labor will improve the integrity of the electoral system and, most urgently, restore transparency, openness and accountability to the funding and disclosure regime.


54. Labor will:
· Encourage public debate about reform of our electoral laws including enrolment and electoral participation;


· Ensure disadvantaged groups are not excluded from the democratic process;


· Introduce a new scheme to regulate political financing, including donations, other revenues, expenditures, and record-keeping;


· Legislate to require public disclosure of political donations over $1000;


· Ensure maximum opportunities for enrolment and involvement in our electoral process;


· Remain committed to constitutional reform to allow simultaneous, fixed four-year terms for the House of Representatives and the Senate;


· Continue to build confidence in the system by effectively investigating and reporting all claims of electoral malpractice;


· Commit to advance the cause of making electoral enrolment and voting as quick, simple and flexible as possible, seeking to maximise the franchise consistent with maintaining the integrity of the system. Labor will further amend electoral legislation to ensure the capacity of Australians to participate in the electoral system is undiminished and extended where possible and appropriate and remove existing laws to disenfranchise Australians due to incarceration or criminal conviction; and


· Seek to limit the level of federal campaign expenditure, through the introduction of spending caps.


55. Labor recognises the important role of the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) in ensuring the integrity of the electoral system and will provide the Commission with the appropriate funding needed to meet its responsibilities, including the highly desirable goal of a single national electoral roll capable of serving the needs of states and territories but funded and maintained by the AEC.


56. Labor acknowledges that independent corruption commissions such as the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) have exposed corruption and ethical lapses in numerous State jurisdictions.

57. Commonwealth integrity agencies include:


· the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity;


· the Australian National Audit Office;


· the Inspector-General of Intelligence Security;


· the Public Accounts and Audit Committee;


· Senate Estimates Committees;


· the Australian Public Service Commission; and


· the Australian Crime Commission.


58. Labor commits to reviewing the existing Commonwealth institutions to adequately capture a national system that meets.

The Coalition stands mostly on its record on open, transparent government.

Policy positions of the Liberal National Coalition on open transparent government

1. Open Government Partnership
No new policy.

Existing Policy
Committed to membership- "Goals of the OGP are consistent with Australia's long and proud tradition of open transparent government." OGP National Action Plan a work in progress.
Comment: No response from Prime Minister to submission by Australian Open Government Partnership Network Chair Dr David Solomon to take up to four months to broaden discussion of reform commitments and establish a formal process to bring government and non government together in the true spirit of partnership to finalise the plan, monitor implementation, report on progress.

2. Open Data, Digital Services 
New policy
Better and More Accessible Digital Services 
In summary:
"The Coalition is investing $50 million to modernise myGov.
Build on our ‘tell us once’ policy by providing Australians with greater control of their personal information. 
Deliver a digital transformation road map for government services by November 2016.
Refresh current shared services arrangements and trial cloud services for common non-sensitive desktop infrastructure and administration applications.
Establish a taskforce in the Prime Minister’s Department to reform government ICT procurement policies, identify existing procurement barriers and opportunities to streamline ICT procurement,
and opportunities to make it easier for startups and small and medium businesses to compete for government ICT contracts.
Release web services to approved third party websites to make it easier and faster for people to complete day to day transactions. 
Establish an Expert in Residence programme to make it easier for government agencies to access world class digital experts.
Work with the research, not for profit and private sectors to identify high value government datasets for release. 
Expand the use of a public dashboard to measure the performance of government services.
Expand the Data Start Programme to create opportunities for Australian startups to develop sustainable businesses through access to open government data."

Existing Policy
Public Data Policy 
Data Availability and Public Use referred to Productivity Commission for report by March 2017.
 
3. Public integrity/Anti-Corruption
No new policy
(Responses awaited to questions asked/commitments sought by Accountability Roundtable and Transparency International Australia.)

Existing Policy
Some commitments made in Australia's name (pdf) by Minister for Justice Keenan at the UK Anti Corruption Summit, including signing on to Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative.
Comment: Otherwise appears satisfied with status quo regarding political donations, use of entitlements, lobbying, whistleblower protection, and not in favour of national integrity commission.

4. Access to Information,Transparency, Accountability
No new policy 
(Responses awaited to questions asked/commitments sought by Accountability Roundtable and Transparency International Australia.)

Existing Policy 
Abbott government labelled at war with transparency and only a few signs of major differences (join OGP, not proceed to attempt to abolish OAIC) in the eight months since. 
  
Comment:
Difficult to find anything from ministers including Prime Minister Turnbull and Attorney General Senator Brandis strongly supportive of freedom of information.
(In 2009 Senator Brandis said:
"The coalition’s commitment to open, responsible government is well known. It was the Liberal Party which pioneered freedom of information legislation in Australia. The Freedom of Information Act.. is the act of a Liberal government—the Fraser government. It is a vital measure to ensure that government remains open, responsible and accountable for its decisions.....The true measure of the openness and transparency of a government is found in its attitudes and actions when it comes to freedom of information. Legislative amendments, when there is need for them, are fine, but governments with their control over the information in their possession can always find ways to work the legislation to slow or control disclosure. That is the practice we are seeing now under the Rudd government, whose heroic proclamations of commitment to freedom of information are falsified by the objective evidence of their practice.")

Waged unsuccessful two year battle to abolish Office of Australian Information Commissioner until decision in May 2016 not to proceed. Office continues to operate with only one of three commissioner positions established by parliament. Attorney General Brandis later told Senate Estimates (see Q&A pp42-44) the decision to abolish the office was a 'good economy measure-and we haven't changed our mind."

No policy response to calls for change and modernisation of the FOI act, or to 40 recommendations for reform in the report by Dr Allan Hawke in 2013, said to be under review in 2014. Dr Hawke's first recommendation was for a comprehensive review of the law and practice, a review of the kind he was unable to undertake.

Claim by Dr Peter Shergold in a report to the government that the "Commonwealth's FOI laws are now arguably the most pro-disclosure among comparable jurisdictions in Australia and overseas" allowed to stand despite the fact the Australian law is ranked 51 of 103 laws in an international comparative survey.

No public ministerial reaction to statements by senior public servants about the law including Australian Public Service Commissioner John Lloyd that FOI is "very pernicious," by Secretary of Treasury Fraser that important things don't get written down, contrary to official guidance that records must be maintained, and by Secretary of Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet Parkinson that added protections are needed if public servants are to offer frank and candid advice, notwithstanding the duty imposed by the Public Service Act to provide the Government "with advice that is frank, honest, timely and based on the best available evidence."

5. Privacy protection 
No new policy
2/100 points in rating by Australian Privacy Foundation

Australian Privacy Foundation rates the parties: privacy protection doesn't rate

The Australian Privacy Foundation Election Challenge-party responses to
Ten Vital Privacy Issues cross-checked against their public platforms- presents a dismal outlook for the priority and approach they give to privacy protection.
(They didn't bother asking about position regarding the 2009 Australian Law Reform Commission recommendation that political parties exemption from the Privacy Act should be removed- the response too predictable I imagine.)

(Some omissions in original now corrected)

In descending order of inadequacy, the best:

• The Pirate Party scored 95/100 on the Challenge. The Party has a very comprehensive platform, which is very positive on human rights and privacy issues, particularly in its heartland area of the digitally literate. The Party provided specific, clear and positive responses to the APF's Election Challenge.
• The Greens scored 94/100. The Party remains close to the people who they represent. They have long had, and retain, an enlightened set of policies. Senator Ludlum has led the Parliamentary fight against privacy-invasive technologies. The Party's Platform is reasonably comprehensive, and has specific segments on Human Rights and Constitutional Reform and Democracy. The Party's Response was clear and to the point.

Others

The Sex Party has a limited platform, but it has been consistently pro-privacy, it claims to have "a broad civil libertarian policy suite", and it has some specific policies that are significantly supportive of human rights. This includes a statutory right to privacy and stronger protections agains breaches of privacy, particularly in relation to data retention and CCTV. (20/100)

The Labor Party platform contains only 3 mentions of 'human rights', two relating to immigration and and one to a promised LGBTI Discrimination Commissioner. Of the 100 policy areas, 4 do relate to 'Workers Rights' (sic), and a dozen more to 'Tackling inequality and disadvantage'. However, the 'National Information Policy' and the policy on Comprehensive Credit Reporting include elements that are actively anti-privacy in nature. The Party had claims in relation to several initiatives some years ago, but its current stance is grossly deficient. Labor provided a Response, which in a number of respects was positive. But it did not score very highly at all in relation to the challenges that we posed. A vote for Labor is a vote for privacy-abusive laws. (19/100)
The Xenophon Group has a narrow platform, and its response was limited. The platform provides very little meaningful about human rights or privacy, but a couple of minor statements have been provided about betting agency access to personal data, and warrants for metadata collection (5/100).
The Liberal Party platform contains nothing whatsoever relating to human rights or consumer rights. The Party has been actively hostile to privacy in recent years, and its commitment to 'Combatting Terrorism' appears to be as unbalanced as ever. In addition, the Party failed to provide a response. From 11/100 in 2013, the Party's score has actually gone backwards. A vote for the Liberals is a vote for privacy-abusive laws, and against privacy protections (2/100).
The National Party appears to sub-contract its platform to the Liberal Party, and hence earns the same abysmal rating (2/100)."

Then:

1 Party may be privacy-supportive, but it's difficult to tell:

• The Liberal Democrats (David Leyonhjelm) are strongly 'libertarian', in the US sense, ("favouring individual choice and freedom over government intrusion"), although they're less extreme than the word would imply in US politics. The Party has firm policies on freedom and civil liberties and democracy, but they're not detailed enough to apply a score.

2 further Parties responded to the APF's Challenge, but without sufficient substance to earn a score:

• Consumer Rights and No-Tolls is generally supportive of human and consumer rights, but does not have any specific policies in place in relation to privacy.
• Glenn Lazarus Team provided no meaningful response in relation to human rights or privacy.

The remaining 13 Parties offered virtually nothing of relevance to the analysis:

• Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile) appears not to have a platform.
• Family First appears not to have a platform.
• The platform of the Democratic Labor Party contains nothing about human rights or privacy, and is largely hostile to them.
• Justice Party (Derryn Hinch) appears not even to have a functioning web-site, let alone any meaningful policies.
• The platform of Katter's Australian Party refers to the advancement of "individual’s [sic] rights and freedoms", but appears to be silent on the specifics of human rights and privacy.
• Jacqui Lambie Network appears not to have a platform.
• Manufacturing and Farming Party (John Madigan) provides nothing meaningful about human rights or privacy.
• One Nation's Platform appears to contain nothing about human or consumer rights, and it mandates a National Identity Card as a condition of use of "tax payer funded services" – "This is not an invasion of privacy, it is a matter of national security".
• Outdoor Recreation Party (ORP) is vaguely libertarian, but provides nothing meaningful about human rights or privacy.
• Palmer United appears not to have a platform.
• The platform of RiseUp Australia contains only a limited amount about human rights.
• Shooters, Fishers (and Farmers?) Party provides nothing meaningful about human rights or privacy.
• Socialist Alliance provides nothing meaningful about human rights or privacy