'Open government' promise still undelivered

By | | comments
(Image via riaclu.org)

"Open government" needs more than buzzwords, starting with transparency in Australia's offshore detention centres, writes The Conversation's .

AFTER delays that threatened to see it dubbed an “inactive” member of the Open Government Partnership, Australia last week issued its Open Government National Action Plan.

The plan offers benefits in advancing: 

' ... transparency, accountability, public participation and technological innovation in Australia over the next two years.'

It also sees Australia follow its peers with a commitment to increase “confidence in the electoral system and political parties”, combat corporate crime, “digitally transform the the delivery of government services” and foster “open contracting”.

The Government promises to do more, much more, in the next iteration of the plan, due in 2018.

But the “ambitious package of 15 commitments” is just as much about bureaucratic turf wars – legitimising the ambitions of the Department of Finance and the Digital Transformation Agency, after the abortive Gov 2.0 programme – as it is about responsiveness on the part of politicians, officials and the increasingly pervasive private sector solution providers such as IBM.

Many of what the plan claims as achievements and building blocks for future development were contrary to a commitment to transparency. The Hawke Report, for example, called for the winding back of access rights under the Freedom of Information Act, in essence, because they were administratively inconvenient. That view hasn’t been helped recently after Public Service Commissioner John Lloyd called freedom of information laws “very pernicious”.

The Open Government National Action Plan also cites the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. The continued existence of this timid watchdog is attributable only to the inability of the Attorney-General to abolish the agency, despite recurrent commitments to do so.

The plan also references Trove, an unrivalled digital initiative accessible across Australia. It was threatened in yet another round of National Library funding cuts. Boasts in the plan about the National Archives are also diminished by the funding cuts it has experienced on a year by year basis. Open government means keeping the doors open and the lights on at curatorial institutions like these.

What’s needed is more than buzzwords about “digital transformation”, “technological innovation”, “discoverability” and the release of “high-value datasets”. Meaningful open government involves respect for figures such as Australian Human Rights Commissioner Gillian Triggs, who dared to ask inconvenient questions about government policies and their implementation in refugee facilities onshore and offshore.

Meaningful open government also involves a vigorous fourth estate, given that media organisations – unlike most individuals – have the skills and resources to use open government tools such as FOI to identify and critique wrongdoing. It is significant, for example, that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and Fairfax effectively exposed systematic wrongdoing in the finance sector, wrongdoing ignored by regulators such as APRA and ASIC. It is also significant that the ABC, amid ongoing financial stringency, continues to face threats to its independence.

The action plan is an achievement, but we should not take it at face value. There are no signs that the people charged with putting it into effect have experienced a true conversion on the digital road to Damascus. The “new ongoing multi-stakeholder forum” is commendable, but needs to be substantiated by action that goes beyond privatising “high-value datasets”, such as health records. Less rhetoric, please, about transparency and more respect by mandarins such as Public Service Commissioner Lloyd for the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act.

If we are indeed open to “open government” a fine demonstration would be facilitating Australian Human Rights Commission access to what is happening on Australia’s behalf in offshore detention centres.

 is Assistant Professor at the School of Law, University of Canberra. This article was originally published in The Conversation.

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

Monthly Donation


Single Donation


Be informed. Subscribe to IA for just $5.

Recent articles by Bruce Baer Arnold
Federal Government fast-tracks grants to Foxtel

According to an ABC report, government funds were fast-tracked to Foxtel during ...  
Palace letters add to the history of the Whitlam Dismissal

Hundreds of letters between the Queen and Governor-General of Australia relating to ...  
After JobSeeker ends, we need a new unemployment system

We should take lessons learnt from the economic stimuli offered during the pandemic ...  
Join the conversation
comments powered by Disqus

Support IAIndependent Australia

IA is dedicated to providing fearless, independent journalism, free for all, with no barriers. But we need your help. To keep us speaking truth to power, please consider donating to IA today - even a dollar will make a huge difference - or subscribe and receive all the benefits of membership. Keep ‘em honest. Support IA.

Close Subscribe Donate