Two pieces in the SMH reflect on what changes may be wrought by and from the change of Federal Government in Australia.
First, a more open and accessible FOI:
"Politicians rarely talk about freedom of information, and the few that do are usually in opposition. So when a politician in government raises the issue, it's worth taking notice, especially when it's the new prime minister who's under no pressure to do so.
Have a look at what Kevin Rudd said on the 7.30 Report this week and it's hard not to get a bit excited that the obsessive secrecy fostered by John Howard's administration might be about to change.
Asked about a recent letter in which former prime ministers Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser urged an inquiry into declining standards of ministerial accountability, Rudd agreed there were declining standards of Westminster government and promised a code of conduct with which ministers would be required to comply.
And then he volunteered this: "But let me just give you one core example. I'm determined to do something about freedom of information. This is notoriously seen as something that executive governments don't like because it causes information to go out which might be embarrassing. I'd like to, by contrast, encourage a culture of disclosure within government departments."
How refreshing is that? When he was working for the Queensland government years ago, Rudd was famous for undermining the state's FoI laws, and there are plenty of people who've been expecting him to do the same in Canberra."
Secondly, a new approach to the appointments of judges and the administration of agencies such as ASIO:
"Robert McClelland as the new Attorney-General and Bob Debus as Minister for Home Affairs don't exactly look like "generational change", but looks could be deceptive. Both are solid, if unflamboyant, performers but, importantly, both have adopted a gently-gently approach to the development of a legislative Charter of Rights and a more liberal legal policy regime.
McClelland, you'll recall, had to be brought back "on message" during the election campaign after he said that Labor would campaign against the death penalty in Indonesia for the Bali bombers.
Debus's new portfolio includes responsibility for ASIO and the Australian Federal Police and the anticipation is that, unlike Philip Ruddock, he'll be conscious of checking some of the excesses we've seen from these agencies in cases such as Mohammed Haneef and Izhar ul-Haque.
The rump of the old neo-cons will be incandescent with rage should a Charter of Rights show its nose above the parapet because it is claimed that such an instrument would shift power from elected politicians to unelected judges.
But now that the wrong sort of politicians have been elected, where does leave the Howardistas? Maybe in their dark moments they are secretly hoping that those black-letter judges will pull out the stops and exercise a bit more authority over social policy that, if we are to accept the then government's advertising, is now in the hands of "fanatics and extremists".
First, a more open and accessible FOI:
"Politicians rarely talk about freedom of information, and the few that do are usually in opposition. So when a politician in government raises the issue, it's worth taking notice, especially when it's the new prime minister who's under no pressure to do so.
Have a look at what Kevin Rudd said on the 7.30 Report this week and it's hard not to get a bit excited that the obsessive secrecy fostered by John Howard's administration might be about to change.
Asked about a recent letter in which former prime ministers Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser urged an inquiry into declining standards of ministerial accountability, Rudd agreed there were declining standards of Westminster government and promised a code of conduct with which ministers would be required to comply.
And then he volunteered this: "But let me just give you one core example. I'm determined to do something about freedom of information. This is notoriously seen as something that executive governments don't like because it causes information to go out which might be embarrassing. I'd like to, by contrast, encourage a culture of disclosure within government departments."
How refreshing is that? When he was working for the Queensland government years ago, Rudd was famous for undermining the state's FoI laws, and there are plenty of people who've been expecting him to do the same in Canberra."
Secondly, a new approach to the appointments of judges and the administration of agencies such as ASIO:
"Robert McClelland as the new Attorney-General and Bob Debus as Minister for Home Affairs don't exactly look like "generational change", but looks could be deceptive. Both are solid, if unflamboyant, performers but, importantly, both have adopted a gently-gently approach to the development of a legislative Charter of Rights and a more liberal legal policy regime.
McClelland, you'll recall, had to be brought back "on message" during the election campaign after he said that Labor would campaign against the death penalty in Indonesia for the Bali bombers.
Debus's new portfolio includes responsibility for ASIO and the Australian Federal Police and the anticipation is that, unlike Philip Ruddock, he'll be conscious of checking some of the excesses we've seen from these agencies in cases such as Mohammed Haneef and Izhar ul-Haque.
The rump of the old neo-cons will be incandescent with rage should a Charter of Rights show its nose above the parapet because it is claimed that such an instrument would shift power from elected politicians to unelected judges.
But now that the wrong sort of politicians have been elected, where does leave the Howardistas? Maybe in their dark moments they are secretly hoping that those black-letter judges will pull out the stops and exercise a bit more authority over social policy that, if we are to accept the then government's advertising, is now in the hands of "fanatics and extremists".
Comments