The senate legal and constitutional affairs committee is currently considering the Abbot government Bill suggesting the closing of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner from January 1, 2015. You can read my full submission here.
This is my cover letter.
Re: Inquiry into the Freedom of Information Amendment (New Arrangements) Bill 2014
I write this in response to the Senate inquiry into the above Bill.
I strongly endorse the sentiment of several of the published submissions, in particular the one by Associate Professor Moira Paterson. Abolishing the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner winds the clock back to 2007 before the reforms of the Commonwealth Freedom of Information Act 1982. Most of the changes and good work increasing independent access to federal government held information would be lost. It is a major retrograde step.
Both A/Prof Paterson and I advised on the FOI reforms during 2008-2010. It was an exciting time as Australia was finally, at least in part, catching up with the access to information changes taking place globally. The 2010 amendments to the federal FOI Act and the establishment of the OAIC brought it significantly closer to international best practice on access to public sector information (PSI).
The establishment of the OAIC was the single most important reform. It finally brought together FOI and privacy (which, in my view, are two sides of the same coin) and gave the Commonwealth a real champion for FOI and made FOI appeals affordable. The OAIC is by no means perfect, but it was a good start and there is evidence (see article below) it had started to make inroads into its most important mission – changing the culture in Commonwealth departments and agencies from one of secrecy and obstruction of access to information to one of pro-active disclosure of information.
Abolishing the OAIC will undo most of this hard work and again make FOI more expensive and cumbersome to use from a user’s perspective. It will also wind back what in essence is a win-win situation. A well functioning FOI system is a trust building tool between the government and the public. By facilitating access to information a government demonstrates it trusts the citizens with the un-spun information they need to take part in the political process in a meaningful way. To juxtapose this with the savings claimed by the current government created by passing this Bill is cynical and in the long term democratically counter productive.
I have conducted internationally comparative research into FOI practical functionality for the last 13 years. In my experience this Bill harms not only the usability of federal FOI in Australia, but undermines the current federal government’s claims of being accountable and transparent.
I submit, below, to the Senate inquiry my latest research comparing a generation one FOI system, Victoria, with the reformed Commonwealth system. As pointed out below, international experience shows that abolishing bodies such as the OAIC will bring the functionality of federal FOI closer to the first generation FOI systems. This would bring Australia, yet again, out of step with international best practice on access to public sector information. This would truly be a pity.
My take on the prosecution of Witness K
Fear is a tricky thing. It’s often hard to distinguish between what is real and … Continue reading My take on the prosecution of Witness K
ABC caves in after political pressure – latest piece in the conversation
The ABC’s chief economics correspondent, Emma Alberici, did her job the other day. She wrote … Continue reading ABC caves in after political pressure – latest piece in the conversation
Australia – world champ in anti-terror and security laws
My latest piece in The Conversation on the proposed federal bill on foreign interference and … Continue reading Australia – world champ in anti-terror and security laws
‘In the name of security – secrecy, surveillance and journalism’
Our book assessing the impact of anti-terror, secrecy and surveillance laws on in-depth public interest … Continue reading ‘In the name of security – secrecy, surveillance and journalism’
How should research into journalism be assessed in Australia?
In the July edition, 2017, of the Australian Journalism Review one section of the journal … Continue reading How should research into journalism be assessed in Australia?
The Senate inquiry: How governments can support public interest journalism
Drawing on the Journalism Education Research Association Australia’s submission (that I contributed to) I outline … Continue reading The Senate inquiry: How governments can support public interest journalism
‘A government without newspapers’ – why we should care about the cuts at Fairfax
Market based journalism is failing public interest journalism. It’s time for governments to consider how … Continue reading ‘A government without newspapers’ – why we should care about the cuts at Fairfax
Trump supporters playing with nationalistic fire
Has nationalism combined with xenophobia ever brought the world anything good? The answer is no. … Continue reading Trump supporters playing with nationalistic fire
Journalism in the era of post-truth and fake news
Confidence in the media has long been low, but can we really afford a society … Continue reading Journalism in the era of post-truth and fake news
New article – Suspect identified: revisiting naming practices in crime coverage
Australian Journalism Review – Vol 38 Issue 1 (Jul 2016) with Steve Lillebuen and Philip … Continue reading New article – Suspect identified: revisiting naming practices in crime coverage
New article: Information access evolution: assessing Freedom of Information reforms in Australia
Australian Journalism Review – Vol 38 Issue 1 (Jul 2016) The past seven years have … Continue reading New article: Information access evolution: assessing Freedom of Information reforms in Australia
Secrecy, Naru and Manus island
My take on our right to know what is done in our name in the … Continue reading Secrecy, Naru and Manus island