NSW FOI 180 Degrees Opposite to QLD & Canberra

The NSW Attorney General Mr John Hatzistergos holds the office of the first law officer of the state. His primary duty is to defend and uphold law and justice over against his secondary commitment to the Labor Party and its policies.

During the Howard era many lawyers quite rightly pointed to the tension between duty and political loyalty in the case of Philip Ruddock as federal Attorney General. Ruddock opted to support Howard's Pacific solution on refugees in direct contradiction to his duty to uphold the national laws (and international covenants signed by Australia) concerning refugees. The problem in his case went even further as he appeared to choose ideology over against even the beliefs of his faith where defending the oppressed/refugees has a long and honourable heritage.

Here in NSW Mr Hatzistergos' loyalty to conservative Labor policies is fairly clear. His personal political philosophy about the supremacy of Parliament trumps all consideration of human rights jurisprudence - a field that he seems to misunderstand judging by the straw-man arguments he routinely draws out of the hat when asked on the subject.

Peter Timmins has summed up the deliberations of a national conference this past week about Freedom of Information in Australia. He points out the direction being taken in Queensland, together with the Federal government view, is a very positive one. He also notes how the direction taken by Queensland is 180 degrees opposite to that of NSW. The stance taken right now in NSW is worrying -- the government seems keen to ensure that it is very difficult to obtain information that might otherwise embarrass it. As chief law officer Mr Hatzistergos is supposed to promote democracy and the laws defending freedom. He is meant to set aside party bias and personal political philosophies. When a government in a democracy chooses to clamp down on the availability of information and uses weasel words to justify it, one begins to wonder what is it that they are afraid of being disclosed/revealed?

If the Ministers of the Crown are worried about circling the wagons to defend themselves from public scrutiny, then the public are quite right in questioning the government's motives. Beyond that, one can also ponder why the Director-General of any government department is likewise unwilling to release information. The public service is about serving the public -- it is not an elite club for wannabe political animals. If a Director General is running a particular programme of administrative changes and holds meetings where no minutes are written down, where committee members are intimidated, and where no paper trail exists: well one can ask if that level of secrecy is a cloak for rather venal motives. Do we have Freedom of Information? Or is it more likely Freedom From Information? Public administration policy and practices in the NSW public sector must be brought out into the open. Ministers should not be worried: what is there to hide? Directors General of departments: what are you hiding and why are you hiding data?

Director of Public Prosecutions (Again)

Yesterday I drew attention to the problem the Director of Public Prosecutions faces with a shortage of funds and hence of staff.

Today the Sydney Morning Herald has run with the story (click here). The Herald quotes Nicholas Cowdery (DPP) as stating bluntly:

"The Government commonly responds to these crises by shooting the messenger, in this case, me ... Anything to take attention away from the truth: which is that it has not accorded high enough priority in its spendingto this essential function of government ... This is not a Newcastle or Hunter problem, it is statewide."

The Herald article gives space for the usual obfuscating spin from a departmental spokesperson defending the Minister and typecasting the DPP in a bad light. The article states:

"The Government expected the DPP to manage its budget efficiently to maintain services around the state 'at all times.'"

The spin also trots out the rubbish details of how the mini budget provided cash so as to employ 14 solicitors. Yesterday I already pointed out the idiocy of the mini-budget as a band-aid solution to a gaping wound.

The rest of this spin is so pathetic it is brimming with weasel words. Of course the DPP manages its budget and does so on the smell of an empty ledger. That of course is precisely the problem highlighted by Nicholas Cowdery. The word "efficiency" simply acts as an in-house cipher that is really referring to dire circumstances: more and more work devolves onto the shoulders of fewer employees. The entire network for the DPP, and thence the whole Attorney General's Department, is so fragile because every specific part that makes up the whole is stretched to the extreme limit. This means that everyone works in crisis conditions, works longer hours than they are actually remunerated for, and they are expected to maintain optimum services. The problem is not so much the structures or work-flow processes at the DPP. The problem does not arise from the staff.

The problem is the idiotic corporate culture that comes from the top-down that spews out meaningless jargon as if it conveys profound meaning. The problem is the public sector is in crisis because of the unrealistic expectations the Government has. The problem reflects on the incompetent mismanagement of NSW over many years. The extravagant and wasteful spending of the public purse by the Government. As the debt is large and the coffers are empty, these calls for "efficiency" are just a bureaucrat's mascara designed to deflect attention away from the real problem.