Govt: open or not

Press, 9 December 1976, Page 20

Govt: open or not

By (

OLIVER RIDDELL

in Wellington

A public inquiry, perhaps even a Royal Commission, is needed to resolve the present widespread and bitter dispute between a number of parties over “open" and “closed” government and the whole vexed question of “confidentiality.” Confidentiality — what government papers should be kept secret and what should be made available for public scrutiny — is receiving a great deal of attention at the moment, both within Government department and Ministerial offices as well as within the private sector.

The row over the creation of the Wanganui computer centre, what information should go into it, and who should have access to the information, was a row in the other direction. It tended to obscure a growing concern that too much information was being kept secret which ought to be freely available.

Wanganui’s computer centre was an example of the pragmatic thinking that has so far gone into the secrecy issue. Everyone was concerned about the desirability or undesirability of what was planned for the centre, without giving a great deal of thought to any underlying philosophy. In fact, what should have occurred at this time was a full-scale public debate on what needs to be kept confidential and what does not. This would have saved the growing amount of time and money being spent in a battle through the mail to prise matters into the open or to keep the files closed. The continuing battle over

the management of the South Island’s beech forests is a good example of how both sides feel. On November 22 this year, Friends of the Earth wrote to the Minister of Forests (Mr Young) saying: “This question of public access to information is a vexed one: one that urgently needs clarification if we are to maintain any semblance of being an open society. “Mr Muldoon’s recent citing of police files to which citizens apparently have access underlines the whole ugliness of ‘official secrecy’: and secrecy in regard to management schemes for state forests could lead to equally divisive results. “We are simply not satisfied about the claim for the need for confidentiality in regard to plans for these forests. The beech forests are hardly military secrets, they have widespread public interest, and any constraints imposed on the flow of information about them can only breed distrust on the part of the public towards their administrators.

“To hinder dissemination of information (about these forests) is to put oneself in the preposterous position of the papacy in regard to the discoveries of Galileo.” The content of this letter, and its tone, are typical of much of the correspondence being sent to Mr Young and the Forest Service these days. They are receiving it because forests are the main object of concern today, but it could be another subject with another minister and department tomorrow, and the claims for open government will be no more or less sincere and valid.

Groups such as Friends of the Earth want legislation guaranteeing public access to information on the management of the physical and social environment. The Government and its departments, on the other hand, consider that the release of incomplete information simply merits and invites criticism of what is being done. They want all the indicative planning done as quietly as possible, but with full public participation while options are being considered and before any decisions are reached.

The departments fail to see how outside organisations can be included in the indicative planning process, when the format of the departments themselves is to assign a team of staff members to do it and then leave them alone while doing it. The recent spate of leaks from within the departments to outside antagonist groups is not making the task of the departments any easier. Meanwhile, a lot of time and money is being spent arguing the pros and cons of confidentiality through the mail.

Tempers are getting frayed, the language used is getting stronger, and both sides are getting more firmly entrenched in their positions.

The present situation is extremely disrupting for both planning and management, and is grossly inefficient for achieving results. The parties need to be able to meet on neutral ground, and if the expense of another Royal Commis* sion is needed then — in the the interests of getting somewhere — this ought to be faced.