The Forum > General Discussion > FOI - who should decide what is protected?
FOI - who should decide what is protected?
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
-
- All
The National Forum | Donate | Your Account | On Line Opinion | Forum | Blogs | Polling | About |
Syndicate RSS/XML |
|
About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy |
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