The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > FOI - who should decide what is protected?

FOI - who should decide what is protected?

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
There was an item on the news tonight regarding a review being undertaken in Queensland into Freedom Of Information regulations.

http://www.foireview.qld.gov.au/Discussion-paper.htm

The current system has become very unwieldy and in the view of some has been seriously abused by the use of the protection of cabinet documents excusions.

A base position is to protect only that which it is in the public interest to protect or that which harms personal privacy. Both seem to be open to inteference based on politics.

Any thoughts on how this could be avoided?

One approach I've considered is that the release of government information could only be protected if both the leaders of the government and largest opposition party (or their nominated proxies) agreed that it should be protected. That would significantly reduce the opportunity for a party to use exemptions to FOI laws to protect itself from politically awkward exposure but still retain some public interest/privacy protection.

So called independant arbitrators are likely to be appointed by the government and have their own career paths impacted by how well the government likes them so their independance is difficult to ensure.

Are there any major weaknesses in what I propose (apart from us never seeing the detail on discussion for pollies pay rises)?

Can anybody think of a better way of managing the exeptions to FOI laws?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 30 January 2008 8:14:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
who should decide, is the wrong question. who has the power, is the right one.

the politicians will decide, because they have the power to decide. they will arrange foi for their own convenience, just as you would do, or i.

talking about politics is a harmless pastime, but in a nation without democracy it's just an hobby, the gossip of subjects about the activities of their 'betters', in parliament.

if you want to be a citizen, not a civilian, you have to assert yourself over politicians through concerted action. this requires a national character of self confidence which is not present in oz.

who should decide? not the lower class, robert, this is a matter for your betters.
Posted by DEMOS, Thursday, 31 January 2008 7:00:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Do we have currently have any constitutional requirements whereby legislation requires bipartisan support? Or even something similar to the U.S. system where to override presidential veto, a 2/3rds majority vote by the Congress is required?

To best honest though, I'd like someone to put a compelling case forward that there is any form of government documentation at all for which it would be truly damaging to the nation for all citizens to have access to it. Everyone's read of hypothetical scare-scenarios about people breaking out in panic upon finding out state secrets, but where's the evidence that this would genuinely be a realistic outcome? It may have occurred long in the past, but I'd suggest most of us are far too apathetic and/or cynical to be shocked by anything at all these days.
Posted by wizofaus, Thursday, 31 January 2008 8:48:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
FOI, now here's a topic both sides of politics can come together to support. Regrettably, there's often little interest from the public in genuine FOI reforms that could provide a massive boost to good governance and all the flow on effects that entails.

Australia ranks very poorly among developed nations for freedom of information. I've had a couple of experiences trying to FOI documents from the QLD state government, and I suspect I'll be going through a similar effort with the NSW government shortly.

It isn't pleasant.

Wizofaus - I think there are some situations where secrecy is warranted, but they're rare and far between, and I think these issues can be overcome with a sensible reform of when these documents are publicly available.

Take local government documentation relating to tenders and employee contracts. These are kept in confidence due to the commercial nature, seeing as that information could be used for an individual to gain commercial advantage, or harm the council.

All that being said - once the contract's expired and the tender's completed, there's no reason for the documents to remain secret. In theory, they're not kept secret, but in practice it takes an FOI application, and few people are going to go to this trouble - council minutes include financial listings, but generally only for the current quarter.

There have been recent changes to councillor secrecy provisions as the local government reforms are proceeding in Queensland.
I've taken a look at them - in theory they're not too bad, but regrettably I think many councillors will err on the side of caution. Theoretically, any information which is only going to harm the reputation of the council can be released, but not if it's going to have financial or legal ramifications. Walking this line isn't too hard if you give it some thought, but many prefer to play it safe.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 31 January 2008 9:32:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wizofaus

If only it were that easy. FYI is just a part of a well oiled system. I can assure you that having FYO under wraps does play an important part of system that is any times anything but fair.

Take for example when a person has alleged corruption within a Government department or police.
Let us say for argument sake that they require copies of docs held at Government or private offices to clear their names?

You don’t honestly think the police or Government will just hand those docs over do you?

It would be nice but it’s not the way it is. As well private info has been released that should never have been.

DEMOS,
Yes but I think its important people lodge subs so it’s at least on public record.
Mind you keep a copy its amazing what they don’t keep as well as what they do or claim are lost.
Demos said
Who should decide? Not the lower class, Robert, this is a matter for your betters.

Pale replies
Sorry but I don’t quite understand what you mean could you explain please.

IMOP it should never ever be anybody employed by Government making or anybody remotely connected with the concern at hand and never PCJC. Parliamentary ustice Commission.

Thank You for bringing this to public attention Rober
Posted by People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming, Thursday, 31 January 2008 9:49:07 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TRTL, I'd like a real concrete example of why allowing public access to a commercial contract is a problem. Remember, *everyone* has access to it, so everyone is able to achieve the same commerical advantage that such access might convey. As far as harming the council, it would surely only harm anyone if they'd done something wrong.
Posted by wizofaus, Thursday, 31 January 2008 3:01:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy