The unjustified secrecy of the Abbott Government
Secrecy has been a hallmark of the Abbott Government to this point. It barred the release of the Department of Treasury’s ‘blue book’, a briefing book prepared for the incoming government before the last election. Media appearances by Ministers must be cleared by the Prime Minister’s office. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, which conducts external review of freedom of information decisions, has been abolished.
Over the past month, however, it has broken new ground. In the first week of July, we were faced with a particularly disturbing situation. Our government was apparently detaining over 150 people, incommunicado and in an unknown location. And the responsible Minister was refusing to answer questions.
Australians could be forgiven for wondering just what kind of government we were living under. The Tamil asylum seekers have since been whisked from the high seas to Curtin detention centre, and now to Nauru. But the secrecy shrouding the Abbott Government in general, and asylum seeker policy in particular, persists.
Why is this alarming? Several different stories can be told that explain the pernicious influence of secrecy in government. Secrecy subverts political accountability. Utilitarians like John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham recognised that only an informed citizenry could hold its government to account, in public debate and (ultimately) at the ballot box, for misusing public power.
Secrecy also makes us less free. The state interferes with our lives constantly. We usually have the information and the avenues to challenge interference that seems illegal or unjust. When the exercise of public power becomes covert, arbitrary and secretive, however, the state begins to dominate its citizens.
Finally, secrecy undermines self-respect. John Rawls thought that people’s sense of their own worth hinged on the development of their capacity to engage with questions of justice. But information is required to participate in these debates, whether in the area of asylum seekers, school funding or intelligence powers.
These are strong moral arguments for transparency in government. They suggest that we should adopt a robust presumption in favour of openness, leaving it to those who assert the need for greater secrecy to prove it.
Of course, there are instances in which secrecy is justified, or even required. First, secrecy can promote effective deliberation, allowing parties to speak more honestly and make compromises without the threat of a backlash. Second, the release of certain information can cause direct harm. We recognise that divulging confidential medical records or the identities of