John Faulkner has announced a draft bill outlining changes to the federal FOI system. A short article on the changes mentions some highlights – the removal of application fees, the removal of a number of reasons for refusing disclosure (notably relating to ones that might politically embarrass the government), change in the 30-year rule for cabinet documents to 20 years, and – importantly – the creation of an internal advocate for compliance with the “spirit and letter” of FOI rules in the personage of an FOI commissioner.
The Australian seems quite pleased with the proposed new laws, if critical of the government in a number of other related bits of legislation. If you’ve got an hour, you can listen to Faulkner introduce the changes, thanks to ABC Fora’s coverage of the Right to Know conference.
FOI reform is easy to talk about in opposition, but terribly tempting to forget about in goverment. Looks like the government’s going to do the right thing here.
I’d be interested to see publicly searchable databses online – if they come up with that, it would show they’re serious and would be a welcome relief from the “ad-hocracy” we’re starting to see from this government. Might take a while though, and damn hard to get publicity for: can’t see Defence, f’r instance, being a big trailblazer here.
Well, its certainly a great leap forward for FOI in Australia, but its still nothing like the scheme we have in NZ. Applies only to “documents”? A blanket exemption for Cabinet material? Charging for decision-making time (i.e. being billed to be told to piss off?) How the hell do you hold your government to account at all?
Mr Idiot Sir, I think you must have left your cynicism at home today. Surely the entire point of FOI laws is to provide the illusion of answering the democratic call while providing as little of substance as possible?
And don’t get me started on “commercial in confidence”, where anything involving any sort of outsourcing is protected in the most unctuous terms. A meeting which involves a platter of sandwiches is “commercial in confidence” to protect the sandwich shop.
They’re allowed to buy sandwiches?
So, its still user pays, ain’t it?
At least the Howard Government practice of wheeling documents in and out of the Cabinet Room to make them confidential seems to be gone.
Surely the entire point of FOI laws is to provide the illusion of answering the democratic call while providing as little of substance as possible?
You’d think that, but the scary thing is that they actually work once in a while.
My sporadic comments on this blog seem to relate to issues of process – so apologies in advance but here goes:
John Faulkner is a very adept “machine” politician – in the sense that he has an expert’s knowledge of the mechanisms of government, how to influence those mechanisms, how to achieve (or prevent) change and the political cost/benefit calculus of seeking to weaken the grasp of existing holders of power. He is, of course, one of those holders of power himself but he has also retained a very strong sense of the reasons he first got involved in organised politics.
Faulkner will have embarked on attempting to get these changes in the full knowledge that there will be three responses: Opposition from those whose control of power is weakened by the proposals; glib “all government is a conspiracy” avoidance of credit; and complaints that it’s not perfect.
He’s gone down this path anyway because he has calculated the policy outcome is worth the effort and political cost, both to himself and his party and either in direct terms or in opportunity cost.
The point I want to make is that this insistence that if it’s not perfect it’s not good enough jeopardises the achievement of good, but not perfect, outcomes.
Everybody makes decisions- in pretty much every aspect of their lives that require a decision -about whether the outcome is worth the effort. Politicians are no different.
You can’t get where you want to be if you insist on starting from some place other than where you are. A refusal to offer support, and thereby change the political calculus of cost and benefit, confines you to a revolutionary strategy for change or leads to no change at all. Offering politicians who are travelling down the same road you want to travel a bit of incentive to keep going down that road and/or to pick up the pace is an easy way of increasing the chances of succesful change.
You never know, one day there might be a bus…..
Hear, hear, AndrewMck. Faulkner has always struck me as one of the most reputable and civic-minded figures working in politics today.
There is a saying that the Christian army is the only army that kills its own wounded.
It never ceases to amaze how Left governments are attacked from the left and right. Yet Liberal right governments just get attacked from the left.
There is something about Lefties that can’t resist eating their own. No sooner have they got a Left government than they set about to describe all its failings, in preference to any good. I think it is a belief there is only perfect truth and perfect rightness and all else should be sneared at or maybe they tend to be obsessive compulsive hand wringers.
It is also prevalent in the USA where Obama has only been in 5 minutes but gets attacked as much from the left as the right even before he has had a chance to implement policy!
Phrases like this is typical of the type -
[the “ad-hocracy” we’re starting to see from this government.]
I guess it feels good even if it is a simple nonsense statement given to purely for purpose of showing the writers personal disdain for the government.
A dose of another three years of Bush and Howard would be a worthy punishment.
I/S, we are all grateful to people like you who have the time and inclination to make them work.
It never ceases to amaze how Left governments are attacked from the left and right. Yet Liberal right governments just get attacked from the left.
It’s called being committed to principles rather than a party. Calling yourself “left-wing” or belonging to the (right faction) of a left-wing party is not a blank cheque. Marginal gains and theological hair-splitting aren’t enough. People want outcomes, and ones that are noticably different from what they’d get under the right-wing alternative. And if they don’t get that, they have every right to complain, and screw your precious election chances.
Idiot/Savant: any chance of a post on New Zealand’s FOI system, to contrast to ours?
The ‘ad-hocracy’ phrase was Andrew E’s (ie not a self-identifying lefty by any stretch of the imagination). I can’t see why he’d care about the strategic value or not of disseminating such phrases in relation to the current government.
any chance of a post on New Zealand’s FOI system, to contrast to ours?
I was waiting for someone to ask that
This business about the left attacking the left.That’s not what the left are doing with the Rudd Government. In fact, I’d go so far to say the left are a little bit horrified by Rudd’s idea that all you have to do to fix extreme capitalism is jig it a little bit so we can get back to business as normal.
What you have to do with extreme capitalism is wipe the fucker off the face of the earth!
Paul, I’m hoping we’ll end up making capitalism so small we can drown it in a bathtub.
I dunno about that, but every time I send an e-mail to Kevin Rudd it comes back Access Denied. So I suppose there’s something going on.
@ MHW #19,
All anyone has to do to find out my real name is read the About page either here or at Hoyden. It’s a net-handle, not a secret identity. Some other pseudonymous bloggers are more reserved, which they have every right to be, but I doubt anyone is trying to keep their name deeply secret from the government. They just don’t want online stoushes slopping over into offline life, and fair enough too.
Faulkner as ‘machine’ politician makes me laugh,so has Faulkner sometimes as he has edged someone into a corner.Freedom of Information stuff was first initiated by a small l Liberal party member from Victoria if my memory serves me completely accurately.So Labor taking up the idea seems like a manifestation over time that Liberal decisions of government and bureaucrats maybe under some pressure from Lobbyist specialists,[as in the coal industry as one ex bureaucratic employee author insists on as a formulae way of preparing policy],may have bad outcomes for them as government by or via the individual and entities affected by Liberal Policies.Seeing that there is now class action suites possible by community of interests,Faulkner wants to retire free of a guilty conscience.I mean sitting on Committees for years in the Senate and seeing what transpires,when honestly you wouldn’t know what every outcome would be,that you cannot find fault with,must be a very cold experience.The bureaucrats and lobbyists may find that also.Common sense then would dictate a necessity for a FOI law. Legislation used by warring lawyers was only usurped occasionally by Senate Enquiry.There is then no evil for Senators if both the populace in whatever form and Senators get niggly about decisions they made,but Legislation and Lawyers and the passage of time reduced the impact.Paine here, finding some fault with the Left and assuming Labor is a Left Party is a sort of philosophical apple pie,rather than a reality that transpires.
Jesus, philip, how do you keep missing the space bar and the return key (for a new paragraph)? Neither of them are small, but not using them makes your posts unreadable. I got sick of stream-of-consciousness about half way through “On The Road”.