While there have been changes in expanding Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation there is still much room for improvement. Much of the change has been merely tinkering at the edges.

There is another approach to FOI, and that is remove the need for it altogether. Why not a framework that would make all government policies and processes completely transparent in the first instance. That is, publish on each portfolio website all information pertaining to policy decisions and government spending including:

- all relevant submissions/letters/ministerials/briefings
- all correspondence from lobbyists, consultants, businesses, charities, conservation groups and other special interest groups etc
- financial transparency in terms of salaries (EBA negotiations, casual labour rates, performance bonuses against KPIs etc), fees, grants and other expenditure in relation to government spending including ministerial/political expenditure (not broad categories used in Annual Reports)
- expand FOI to include any organisation or business who receives government money as part of outsourcing arrangements, bail outs or grants;
and
- foreign and economic agreements spelt out.

Take as a given there are exceptions in the area of defence, security or around personal privacy, Cabinet processes as applicable. However if there are to be restrictions, they must exist with clear guidelines and restrictions on using those exemptions only when they apply, and where the intention is to not to deceive.

Because it is over-used to disguise influence, Commercial-in-Confidence restrictions should only apply during tendering processes when organisations are competing for business. It should not be used in hiding influence around government decisions in relation to many policy areas including competing environmental/business interests as one example.

A system like this would make an FOI application a rare event. It is possible to craft a system that obviates the need to apply. An accountable government can only be so when it is open.

Is it possible and would it work? There may be some initial teething problems and resistance or suggestions that the process may just push some activities under the radar.

In the long term I believe democracy would be better served by this approach than hindered.

Dear Pelly,

The reality of the world we live in I don't think will
permit what you're suggestion - great as it is.

There are some powerful lobby groups and politicians who
have firm views on the subject of freedom of information
and they don't hesitate to express them. Calls to
suppress information are usually underpinned by arguments that
the information presents a danger to society or to
individuals and therefore those who think they know best will
continue to argue that it should be suppressed.

Any person seen to be upholding the right of freedom of access
will become the target of personal and vitriolic attacks as
we've seen in the case of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks (from
those challenged or embarrassed by the information). Therefore
the defense of this right comes at a high personal cost and
who's really prepaid to pay it?

Of course what you're suggesting would be great but - I frankly
don't think it will happen. Whilst information has never
been more readily available - there are those who seek, and will
continue to seek to control and censor that information.
Governments, politicians, special interest groups, and
individuals. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to try
to stand up for what I believe is one of the core values in
a democracy (the right for people to be informed so that they
can make the right choices) - however it will continue to be an
uphill battle which we won't always win.

It's a precarious path we walk in trying to ensure free and
uncensored information for our communities as the WikiLeaks
controversy has shown us.

Dear Lexi
Thanks for your comments. The idea of open government would indeed be daunting for those who now benefit by the status quo, but I think it is about changing a cultural mindset particularly within the public service and with those active in politics.

It is an idea worth pursuing by the citizenry for the citizenry. As you suggest the concentration of power as it stands means implementation of such a system would be difficult and not without obstacles. But I don't think it is impossible and it is an ideal that unites voters from all sides of politics.

I think there is something unusual in the idea that citizens need to approach their governments to request access to information that should already be freely available in a democracy.

How dare they call it FOI when you have to fork out money for information on yourself to defend yourself. Information that the authorities just take & keep without asking.

Dear Pelly,

We know what should happen but at times that's very different
from what does happen. I remember only too well when a
colleague at work asked to see her personnel files under
FOI. We were working for a government department at the
time. There was a great deal of delay with the response to her request - and the final files that she was given were incomplete.
She was told that they were "missing."

We must remain vigilant and ready to defend this core value
and of course it is important for us to stand up for it.
I fullt agree with what you're saying. I just don't believe that
we'll always succeed. But of course we must keep trying.

Posted by Lexi:

" ... The reality of the world we live in I don't think will
permit what you're suggestion - great as it is. ... "

Yes, I have to agree but consider it to be most unfortunate. I would add that mainstream politics does not want transparency because they don't want to be held to account.

When you put aside what they believe and what they want people to believe about them, what you are left with is a series of current and historical facts which show some of them to be "evil" for want of a better term, in my opinion.

And on that point I note *Bazza Obama's* comments when reflecting on the words of an allegedly Great and Noble African North American man regarding not demonising all of those involved in some of these evil institutions, however ...

..

I note the likes of *Belly* consider it slanderous to describe relevant politicians as "Child Abusers" but it is only slanderous if it has no basis in fact. .. I think that if it were their children being locked up indefinitely without charge or trial in conditions known to produce significantly adverse mental health outcomes then they would likely be amongst the loudest objecting to it.

..

I once saw the W.A. D.P.P. knock back a concession based F.O.I. on the legal basis they were insufficiently resourced to honour the request. Perhaps if it was a full fee paying application then it would have been a different story.

..

Whilst tangental to this thread, I offer the following link from the *Jakarta Post* for people's interest:

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/11/07/australia-s-double-standards-complicates-bali-boy-s-drug-case.html

" ... Australia's double standards complicates Bali boy's drug case
Ross B. Taylor, Subiaco, Western Australia | Mon, 11/07/2011 7:36 PM ... "

and this one re: the reality of caning in Malaysia:

http://photo-journ.com/2007/foreigners-flogged-most-in-malaysia#axzz1cKPxzmiC

" ... Caning in Malaysia dates back to British colonial times and involves using a wet rattan stick to whip the prisoner on his buttocks, often splitting the skin and leaving scars that can last up to ten years. ... "

Most Australians, and Indonesian, would say: The Aussie boy should be reunited with his family back home now.

And so should the 50 Indonesian children sleeping in adult jails in Australia.
Ross B Taylor,
Australians don't seem to be able to see fairness when it concerns anyone else.

Dream on,
that caning is horrific but not nearly as bad as the damage done by drugs to all of us. One thing is for sure that if robbers & criminal public servants were to receive similar our economy would be in much better shape. For those who believe this is too harsh let them deal with the hoodlums pay compensation & back the Malaysia solution.

Pushing for greater transparency is really about improving the democratic process.

It is examples like that of Daniel Ellsberg who fought for democracy by revealing the duplicity of four governments in using and facilitating the Vietnam War for the purposes of domestic politics. In no sphere, including international, should governments be acting separately from their charter. There is interest in this area as organisations like Wikileaks and Open Australia Foundation and FOI groups growing in the UK, reveal.

FOI is not a luxury but a right and public service and government culture still buries itself in a culture of secrecy. It is easy to do I have been there myself and understand the feeling of being part of a team working to a common goal. But sometimes those in power and those who work alongside need to step back and ask who it is 'we' are working for and why.

There is no 'mission' of government I can think of that would override it's greater charter to represent the people's best interests. Secrecy does not achieve that purpose. The truth really does set you free.

There is no government activity that would need to be privy to a small elite especially if that elite is working complicitly with other interests over the rights of ordinary people.

Greater transparency through access to information is one way of improving the democratic process. The idea that citizens are privileged to be 'allowed' access to information that rightly belongs to them is an anathema to this process.

It is about what could be rather than what 'is' and how to go about improving and changing the cultural mindset.