|
 |
 |
|
November 2006 - Volume 18, No. 4
Freedom of Information University of Tasmania's RICK SNELL wants to restore the public's right to know. Australian FoI is in a sad state of disrepair across all levels of government. Instead of a vigorous flow of high quality information informing both public debate and public policy, we have an erratic and unreliable trickle of information of variable quality. The right to know granted by Freedom of Information Acts has been administered as a discretionary act of 'grace and favour'. Significant sections of our political leadership, senior bureaucracy at all levels of government and the judiciary have been unable to make the transition to an open and transparent system of decision-making. The recent High Court decision in McKinnon is a clear example of the Treasurer, his senior bureaucrats and the majority of judges who heard the case (from the AAT to the High Court) being unable to provide access to basic and out-dated policy documents. We have an access system that defaults to secrecy rather than one that supports access unless there is a very good reason to protect information. Significant law reform is needed to revitalise the legal and administrative framework for promoting and enhancing transparency in Australia. The Federal ALP's Freedom of Information Amendment (Abolition of Conclusive Certificates) Bill 2006 is a good start. Yet law reform, alone, is not sufficient to achieve open government objectives. Australians, for the last 23 years, have relied on governments and the public service to deliver on the objectives set out in Freedom of Information legislation. A reliance that has proved to be problematic. We need a long-term campaign that not only addresses legislative change but is able to support a comprehensive attempt to transform the culture and practice of the public service. An institutional champion The absence of a credible, consistent and persistent voice that seeks to hold government to account has been a contributing factor to the current poor state of the law, and the weak implementation in all Australian jurisdictions. The work to make more open government a reality will never be fully completed (it is more an aspirational goal) but to have a chance, it needs a strong, well-funded and capable representative body to monitor, research, speak up and intervene when required. Peter Timmins has argued, on his Open and Shut blog (http://www.foi-privacy.blogspot.com) that we need "a credible, professional representative body to promote and advocate open government principles, and FoI laws that work to achieve those objectives." The work and efforts of this organisation would need also to focus on the wider accountability framework or what has become to be described as the 'Integrity branch of government' (Ombudsman, Auditors-General, public interest disclosures legislation etc). Some models The US Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (http://www.rcfp.org) is an example of a media-related group that has a broader focus and purpose than simply FoI. It exists to provide free legal assistance to journalists but undertakes important public relations, government relations, and legal research and intervention, as well as providing valuable information for those who work in the media. It has strong and on-going support from media organisations, but is also currently involved in raising $2.5million. The UK Campaign for Freedom of Information (http://www.cfoi.org.uk) played a major role in getting the law in place and continues as a focal point for watching over implementation. Its activities include public education and training. It lists 90 organisations as supporters (http://www.cfoi.org.uk/suppobsorgs.html). The Canadian Freedom of Information and Privacy Association (http://www.fipa.bc.ca/home) is largely driven from British Columbia but has a national focus. It has just launched the Campaign for Open Government under the banner "You can handle the truth" (http://www.opengovernment.ca/) with some detailed research on what is happening on FoI in British Columbia. The report was sponsored by the Canadian Newspaper Association and the BC Government Employees Union. A representative body supported by the Australian Press Council, unions (especially the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance), civil society groups, business and others could make a significant difference like the organisations in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. At the moment attempts to improve FoI practice, or even rearguard actions to preserve the limited access we have gained to government information, are the result of relatively random, ad hoc and singular activity. We rely on the individual zeal of a few FoI Editors like Michael McKinnon and Matthew Moore, the quiet but effective use of FoI by journalists like Kelvin Bissett of The Daily Telegraph, or the sterling efforts of Peter Timmins. All of which are marvellous efforts that can disappear overnight due to illness, promotion or simply a lack of energy or time. We need to have some sort of institutional arrangement that will ensure the struggle for our right to know will be as determined, resourceful and creative as the efforts to deny that right have been and will continue to be. The Australian Press Council has in recent years been a significant champion of Australian FoI. The Council needs to play an instrumental role in developing more champions. Rick Snell [Rick Snell is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Tasmania. He served as editor of the Freedom of Information Review. This article is adapted from a speech he gave at the Council's October meeting.] [ return to top ] Articles in the November 2006 News on the McKinnon case and the future of freedom of information: For more information on FoI, and the Council's views on FoI, go to [ return to top ] Return to APC News 2006 Index |
|||
|
About the Council [ its history and benefits of self-regulation | Members] | |
|||
|
Last updated 28 November 2006 All material ©The Australian Press Council. Website Design, Construction & Maintenance by |
|||
