Recently the Australian Government made a commitment to Open Government.
New Rule #1: You can't say you are committed to Open Government when you respond like this to a request for official information.
New Rule #2: You can't say you are committed to Open Government while at the same time proposing to read peoples mail and listen in on their communications.
New Rule #3: You can't say you are committed to Open Government while saying that it may lead to premature unnecessary debate.

It is good to hear that Government's are at least starting to understand the importance of Open Government. Democracy is much more than simply voting every few years. As I have said before, voting is a blunt instrument. The citizens must be able to have input into the policies of their Government. And for that they must be well informed.

When the New Zealand Information Technology community spoke out against software patents the Government listened, proving that the New Zealand Government is taking Open Government seriously. There were no grand declarations, no press releases, just the genuine consideration of the point of view of New Zealand citizens. That our views were not only listened to but acted on gave me real hope for the integrity of the New Zealand political system.

The Australian Government on the other hand released a statement last week that on the face was very positive. They state that "The Australian Government now declares that, in order to promote greater participation in Australia’s democracy, it is committed to open government based on a culture of engagement, built on better access to and use of government held information, and sustained by the innovative use of technology."

The Australian Government says that it will be "strengthening citizen’s rights of access to information, establishing a pro-disclosure culture across Australian Government agencies..." Well thats nice and all, but in their heart what do they really think about the involvement of the public in Government? It seems the answer was forthcoming from Claudia Hernandez of the Attorney-General's Department.

Hernandez wrote in defense of the gross censoring of a document released under the official information act saying public release "may lead to premature unnecessary debate and could potentially prejudice and impede government decision making." She goes on to describe how she would rather not seek public input before policy has been finalized by the Government.

So to paraphrase, the release of the information concerning an issue of vital public interest could not be released because it may permit "collaboration with citizens on policy and service delivery", as quoted from the Declaration of Open Government. What point is there seeking public input after the Government has finalized it's policy? How can you make a Declaration of Open Government one week, and introduce State Surveillance measures that Stalin would be envious of the next?

The document concerned asked ISP's to collect data that goes to and from their customers. The Government claims that the information collected will be limited and used for specific purposes. However, we only have their word for that because the actual document sent to the ISP's has not been released.

An official information act request for the document resulted in a release of a document that is massively censored. For all we know it may obligate ISP's to store every byte of data transferred for several years. The justifications for this massive invasion of privacy are weak at best.