Transparency and openness in government apply not only to governmental data and records, but also to the relationship of the public sector with the media.
I think professionalism does require etiquette and a willingness to engage. There's not much point having people in communication positions in the government sector if they display a siege mentality, and are unnecessarily unpleasant and non-cooperative. What is their job anyway? What does it serve to obstruct?
The only caution I would express is that etiquette shouldn't be merely a cover for non-cooperation.
Often the inquiries we made in the media are of a basic nature, to check things. We want to get it right. Otherwise we make requests for comment, and for specialist journalists in certain areas, we seek briefings on policy.
The broader issue of interest to the media in a modern democracy is gaining access to as much government information as possible in the public domain. As many of you may know, we are pursuing this as part of the Right to Know campaign, a joint campaign with other media organisations.
The Rudd Government made certain commitments before the election on allowing greater access to information compared with the former government, including an end to conclusive certificates for freedom of information requests. It also promised more transparency and openness in government. We're looking forward to the Rudd Government sticking with these pledges.
Brad Norington is a Senior Writer with The Australian. He specialises in industrial relations and contributes to coverage of national politics. Brad previously worked for 20 years with The Sydney Morning Herald, for much of that time as the paper's industrial editor, and is also author of several books.
____________________________________________________
More on the 'Australia's Right to Know' campaign:
Other Open Forum blogs on etiquette & manners:
Printer friendly version
Comments
right-to-comment legislation needed
There's nothing more frustrating than approaching a government department for a comment or clarification on a simple, non-contentious issue, only to be greeted with a barrage of questions, and obsfucation. And nothing more galling than speaking with an intelligent well-informed public official, only to have them then turn around and sayit can't be quoted because all comments have to come from the minister.
In my experience the state governments are most guilty when it comes to gagging their staff and bureaucrats, it's a significant problem and a significant challenge to our notion of democracy which is underpinned by the liquidity of information.
In order to ensure greater levels of transparency, as per Brad's comments, we also need have some kind of whistle blower or 'right to comment' legislation in place which would prevent ministers from gagging public officials. However I suspect, as with our bizzare and arcane deffamation laws, it will take a significant public campaign to get anything done about this - as it is not in the interest of any government to have public officials freely commenting to the media.
It would be however, in the interest of the rest of the voting public, and in the interests of the free press.
JV Douglas -
technology writer by trade, luddite by conviction
the publics right to know and the media ability to access
When i turned the channel last night to watch the ABC's Q&A I was almost doing it reluctantly because i figured the discussion was going to be about the environment and climate change again. I count myself as being a "greenie" at home and work (maybe not the ballot box just yet) but i confess to being all "greened out". Even a little overwhelmed by the rhetoric of the debate as opposed to real action. Anyway, i flicked over and was treated to an interesting discussion around the place of the media. There are two things that concern me - the first is that government departments more often than not place the interests of the government ahead of the interests of the people. Clearly, the people have a right to access information because, at the end of the day, they are the ones funding the whole kit and coboodle (if thats who it is spelt). I recently found myself in the position of having to request data that should be in the public domain. after sending off the official request i was notofied by the department who told me they would respond in due course. Another email arrived the other day, some 8 weeks after the initial request telling me that my question had been answered, have a nice day. Of course, the answer was nowhere to be seen. I sent another email off in response to the most recent one only to find i have to wait another 8 weeks for a response to the most recent email. Imagine my frustration - someone who thought he understood the process. Imagine hoe everyone else feels who doesn't quite have a grasp of the process - i can imagine them at home pulling hair! So, departments need to get with our program, not us with theirs. The second point is media access being watered down by the fact so many journalists are finding themselves on the dole lines. Peter Hartcher reflected only a few hundred journalists deal with a government who run a trillion dollar economy and who have hundreds of thousands of employees. With the retrenchments at Fairfax surely this is only going to make the problem of access greater. If people have nothing to hide then there should not be an issue over data - finally, one young lady asked the question on whether or not she should go into journalism or PR - what a question to ponder for a young person - questioning over whether making a difference means a job in PR versus journalism. What are the roles of the four estates again?
Matthew Tukaki, Director of Government Policy & Strategy, SansGov (Sanseman Government); PO BOX 3295 Redfern Sydney NSW 2016 Australia; Mobile +61 (0) 449 703 118; matthew.tukaki@sansgov.com
http://www.sansgov.com/