faulker03

The post below was published in March and is now republished in light of reports today that Prime Minister Turnbull continues to use non government messaging services. And isn't alone, as a spokesman explained: "Many MPs and Ministers use private messaging systems — including SMS, WhatsApp, Wickr, etc and private emails etc — for non-sensitive material for reasons of convenience and superior functionality," the spokesman said."All communications or records of a minister which relate to his or her duties are [subject to many exemptions] potentially subject to Freedom of Information whether it is on SMS, a private email server or a Government email server. "The majority of Government correspondence is routine and of a non-sensitive nature and is therefore not subject to sensitive security markings." ............................................................................................................... Australian angles arising from Hillary Cli...

The journalists union the MEAA is the latest voice urging the government to drop the plan, with the bill to achieve this doomed to fail in the Senate and the whole idea out of kilter with Prime Minister Turnbull's commitment to more open, transparent government. MEAA chief executive, Paul Murphy told Guardian Australia discussions should take place on how to improve the freedom of information system. Read Paul Farrell's report.  Attorney General Brandis has told the world recently "Never underestimate the importance of a change of leadership itself. Never underestimate the importance of the fact that there are no fewer than eight new faces around the cabinet table. So this is a very different government," In 2009 Senator Brandis said Freedom of Information is vital to ensure that government remains open, responsible and accountable for its decisions, adding :  "the true measure of the openness and transparency of a government is found in its attitudes and ...

Johan Lidberg , Monash University   In a year and a half the Abbott government managed, in practice, to undo the painstaking reforms of the federal Freedom of Information (FOI) system that took shape in 2008 and came into force in late 2010. In the best of worlds, FOI laws can create a win-win situation for governments and their constituents. By facilitating, instead of blocking, access to information governments signal that they take transparency and openness seriously. This limits maladministration and corruption. The public feels trusted with unspun information that they need to participate meaningfully in the political process. Unfortunately, we’re not living in the best of access-to-government-information worlds. From the time it took office, the Coalition government, spearheaded by Attorney-General George Brandis, tried and failed to shut down the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC). The Abbott government’s first budget cut the OAIC’s funding . The Senate...

Paul Farrell in The Guardian continues his series on the war against the Office of Australian Information Commissioner and Josh Thomas in Crikey (subscription) covers similar territory, Thomas canvassing initiatives Prime Minister Turnbull could take to give effect to his pledge to open and transparent government: abandon plans to shut down the OAIC,  undertake a complete overhaul of the Freedom of Information Act look into record keeping in the digital information age move FOI from the Attorney-General's Department into PM&C to take it away from just being "lawyers' business" join the Open Government Partnership.

With no sign of any weakening in the solid Senate majority against, Paul Farrell reports in The Guardian today that Senator Nick Xenophon wrote to Attorney General Brandis this week calling for the bill  to be withdrawn to end the uncertainty surrounding the office. Former Australian Information Commissioner Professor John McMillan in this interview with Farrell said the uncertainty "can’t continue. it’s very hard to maintain staff morale. It’s very hard to recruit really talented people on an ongoing basis when they don’t know whether the office is going to disappear from one month to the next,”  Professor McMillan reiterates points made in his piece in The Australian today and singles out the Attorney General's Department and senior public service leaders for special mention: .. McMillan told the Guardian the decision to scrap the office was a blow to open government. He called for more debate on freedom of information and hit back at claims by senior public officials...

Writing in The Australian today former Australian Information Commissioner Professor John McMillan argues the exercise has "further entrenched the cynicism and hypocrisy that has permeated the operation of open government laws for more than three decades."  Professor McMillan makes an urgent call for a constructive debate on the future of Freedom of Information, and has a message for Prime Minister Turnbull, the nation's very enthusiastic supporter of open government: "No political party can truly claim to subscribe to a policy of open government while this impasse continues." I'm sure The Australian and News Corp Australia won't mind if I let the professor speak for himself on this important subject:  Commitment to freedom of information bolsters our democracy It is 16 months since the government announced its intention to revise arrangements for resolving disputes about access to government information under the Freedom of Information Act 1982. At ...

Independently of Right to Know day or week - now there's a missed opportunity - Australian media organisations and journalists are finding new strong voice about freedom of speech,  press freedom and related issues, decrying poor efforts to speak up as the wave of national security laws washed through and freedom of information went backwards in the last few years. The chair of the Australian Press Council Professor David Weisbrot said laws proposed as a counterterrorism measure threatened the ­future of investigative journalism and must be revisited. He told The Australian the council had an important advocacy role, a role for a long time left to the publishers: “My view is that the issues are so central to all of our constituency, our readers and the newspapers, that we need to be involved and we can do that because if The Australian or the Tele or the Herald argues about these things, many people will see that as self-interested, whereas The Press Council, when we speak ...