Image: Devo 1980. Freedom of choice or freedom from choice?
Sir,
The ongoing pursuit of Peter Gutwein under Freedom of Information laws seems based on the the hope that something embarrassing to the government will come to light. If this is as frivolous as it appears to be it seems to be a gross misuse of FOI. Freedom is a precious thing. Thousands of our freedoms have been lost since World War 2, always because those freedoms have been abused. Unless there is a suggestion of criminality or abuse of power, my suggestion is to save up FOI for something important
Richard McCure Sandy Bay
About
ReplyDeleteDevo is a post-punk/new wave band hailing from Ohio. Their bizarre aesthetic and bold fashion have had a cultural impact, and are oft parodied in media.
Origin
Devo were formed in 1972 in Kent, Ohio by brothers Gerald V. and Bob Casale. The idea of “de-evolution” was developed from some of the members witnessing the infamous “Kent State Shootings”. Their most consistent line-up were Gerald V. Casale, Bob Casale, Mark Mothersbaugh, Bob Mothersbaugh and Alan Myers between 1974 to 1986.
Spread
Devo were active from 1973 to 1991, and 1995 to present. Devo released their debut album Q: Are We Not Men? A: We Are Devo! in 1978, which gained critical acclaim. However, their mainstream breakthrough was with their hit single “Whip It” from the album Freedom of Choice (1980), reaching #14 in the Billboard charts that year.
Impact
Devo came to this commentator's mind immediately on readind Dickie's letter on the FOI debacle.
Sir,
ReplyDeleteMr McCure seems to be labouring under a serious misapprehension - one apparently shared by Minister Gutwein himself.
The so-called "pursuit" of the minister is not under "FOI" (the Freedom of Information Act 1991 was repealed 8 years ago by the Right to Information Act 2009 but that is hardly to the point. )
The fact of the matter is that the minister has been required by a statutory committee composed of members of both houses of the Tasmanian parliament to produce an unredacted copy of a letter written by him to another minister of the Crown. Mr Gutwein flatly refuses to do so on the quite spurious ground that he is not required to do so under the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2009 and on the the rather imprecise ground that the letter in question is "cabinet-in confidence".
As to the first ground, the requirement to produce the document has been made pursuant to the express power conferred upon the Public Accounts Committee by s 7 of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1970 and NOT pursuant to any provision of the Right to Information Act 2009. The minister (and possibly Mr McCure) are either unaware of this fact - or deliberately seek to obfuscate.
Quite apart from the express provisions of s 7 of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1970 the Tasmanian parliament has an undoubted power and obligation to hold the government of the day and its functionaries, to account.
This is what is meant by "responsible government".
Parliament is not simply the legislative branch of government, it is also "the Grand Inquest of the Nation".
The second ground relied upon by the minister - that of "cabinet-in-confidence" is, with respect, meaningless cant. Either the letter in question is one that contains details of the deliberations of the cabinet - in which case it MAY be protected from production by the doctrine of "public interest immunity" or it does not.
If it does not then it must be produced at the command of the parliament.
The notion that a letter written by one minister to another is immune from production to the parliament on the basis of something called "cabinet-in confidence" (whatever that is) is simply nonsense.
Our freedoms are lost when the executive government snubs its nose at our elected representatives whose function it is to hold to account the government that we have elected.
But apparently Mr McCure does not think that this is something that is important.
I remain,
Your Obedient Servant
Thank you for your well argued rebuttal of my letter, and you are correct that I am unfamiliar with the Right to Information Act. So I am reduced to resorting to a common sense argument in support of my position. Surely if the pursuit of communications between ministers becomes a well trodden path toward political point scoring, the end result will be that politicians will avoid writing anything down that could ever possibly be embarrassing. This would include diaries. I can't imagine that this would lead to better government.
ReplyDelete