A 'right to know' is essential to public trust in government

I comprehend the role of our public service in building a better society and understand the importance of a professional public service that serves the government, the Parliament and the public.

It is critical the general public has confidence decisions are being taken in the national interest and the interests of our local community and that they are subject to appropriate scrutiny.

A "right to know" and the capacity for both the Parliament and the media to hold a government to account is in the public interest and critical to the health of our democracy. This foundation is being undermined with actions such as the raids on the offices of media organisations and the home of a respected political journalist.

Over the past six years we have seen a worrying shift towards a lack of transparency and an undermining of media freedom. The Morrison government has tried to silence dissent from individuals and organisations and gag whistleblowers.

This government refuses to answer questions from journalists or members of the public; it ignores its legal obligations to provide information to journalists or members of the public under freedom of information laws; and uses the criminal law to intimidate people who embarrass them.

And in Estimates this week evidence from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner revealed the Morrison government is increasingly failing to comply with federal law in answering Freedom of Information requests.

It was of little surprise that the worst offender is Peter Dutton's Department of Home Affairs, which has failed to process FOI requests within the legally required time frame over the last two years in a staggering 26 per cent of cases.

This government has also worked to undermine its own workforce through the uncertainty and instability of relentless outsourcing and labour hire. Expertise across all levels of government has been eroded. The growth of conflicts of interest at every level in the public service has been led by a government that has effectively shredded a meaningful Ministerial Code of Conduct.

I know firsthand that hard working, diligent, intelligent public servants take pride in their work, and take their responsibility to our society very seriously. They work in our interest.

I congratulate The Canberra Times on its historic and united campaign for media freedom. Our community does indeed have a "right to know".

If the new stadium was built on the current Northbourne Oval site it would achieve all the ACT government's and sporting bodies' objectives without the community losing its valuable Civic swimming pool.

The Northbourne Oval site is owned by the Raiders and includes a club site, car parking and Northbourne Oval. It is adjacent to the CBD so would advantage existing pubs, restaurants and cafes to help fans maximise their game-day experience, as well as being close to the tram and Canberra Centre parking. It would also achieve Mr Barr's objective of revitalising Civic.

The stadium should be a joint venture with the Raiders contributing the oval site and the ACT government and Brumbies putting up the equivalent in cash.

We need a framework for disclosure of government information. How about this?

If an employee or contractor gives their boss's information, that should be a breach by them.

They should have a defence if they can show that the information was already publicly available, or was required to be available publicly under FOI or on request. (Reasonably thinking so should matter only to penalty, not to liability).

If anyone else publishes government information further, they should be subject to national security consequences. But that must be on the basis that significant adverse national security consequences are shown from the particular information.

Arguments that the information was classified and publishing classified information is against national security regardless of its content can't be accepted. Adverse consequences of the actual information must be shown.

If the publication has significant positive value that has to be weighed against adverse security consequences.

Establishing adverse security consequences must be by evidence, and that evidence must be fully testable by cross examination, consideration of contrary evidence and so on.

Closed proceedings must never exclude defence knowledge of, and opportunity to test, the evidence.

Note that none of this gives journalists or the press special status. We shouldn't have publication rules that depend on whether a gatekeeper acknowledges the publisher as the press or the author as a journalist.

While the denizens of our Lubyankas might not like having to prove harm, everyone else would be better off.

I am surprised that the Commonwealth government is yet again investing money in the Regatta Point building ("Lakeside cafe, restaurant planned", October 20, p2).

And to make matters worse it is in effect ignoring the government's adopted park master plan of the late Dame Sylvia Crowe, one of the world's leading landscape architects.

Dame Sylvia spread development more evenly across the site so that the diverse parts of the park's landscape could be enjoyed by visitors. She also proposed a floating tea room in the north-west corner of Nerang Pool, close to the pedestrian entrance into the park.

In 1993, the ACT Heritage Council had a report prepared on Commonwealth Park which amongst other things drew attention to the absence of the Nerang Pool tea room in the development to date. The National Capital Authority will be aware of that report.

Why has the adopted Dame Sylvia Crowe plan been ignored?

Conveying information is an important part of the democratic decision-making system. It brings transparency into society and helps ensure decisions accord with people's sense of justice.

The journalists' mission is to oversee the work of government officials on behalf of the citizens.

The role of a journalist and his or her position in relation to the use of social power is, however, a more complicated question and one I think is often abused in numerous publications. The journalist becomes a "star" and not a servant of the people.

Here are some guidelines from a Finnish journalism textbook.

"You are there but not seen, you are a shadow; you know people but are not everyone's friend; you are present but you are not the object of the piece to news; you are not the protagonist of news article; you work in a profession which is mundane work and you are a professional according to whose information the majority of us construct our world view."

The rule should be for cyclists to stay 1.5 metres from cars not the other way around.

I can just see the glee of the lycra clad zealot who takes up the whole road, as many do now. In order to stick to the legal passing distance the motorist would have to end up on the opposite footpath (which of course is illegal and yet not illegal for cyclists) or have the peak hour traffic come to a halt as the motorist just stays behind the zealot.

Cyclists should have to register their bikes and have a number plate. Then when they are doing the wrong thing, which is on many days especially in the country where they are riding in groups of eight or more abreast, they could be held to account.

Why are the rules for slow traffic to keep left not enforced? I have seen many cyclists not using the cycle paths provided right next to the road and yet they are on the road.

I refer to the Rattenbury Manifesto (Climate Change Strategy)and the buzz words being used to sell it which includes the need to "Copenhagenise" Canberra.

The area of metropolitan Copenhagen is 88 square kilometres. The metropolitan area of Canberra is 800 square kilometres. Is it a realistic comparison as a goal or just a reflection of an Inner North Greens dogma?

I'm unclear what car free days and more active encouragement of bicycles would do for the majority who live beyond the Inner North. Currently just 3 per cent of Canberrans commute via bicycle.

You'd have to be very brave, very rich, very stupid, or all three, to buy a flat off the plan.

So now the Prime Minister's speeches open by honouring veterans following his acknowledgement of traditional custodians.

This dilutes the impact of the acknowledgement.

In my experience any welcome to country (or recognition of first nations peoples) is best enhanced by a response that shows commitment to learning from Indigenous people and demonstrates the steps we are taking for justice and reconciliation.

Please, fellow users of Canberra's already awful bus service, go easy on the perfume/cologne.

Perfume should be discovered, not announced with a sledgehammer.

Looking at you, route 181 users.

Yay yay, Dave Roberts (Letters, October 25), you're my man.

I so completely agree with you. Private is private.

If people want to send their kids to private schools, they should pay for it themselves.

October 23's "Today In History" claimed "The First Parliament of Great Britain conven(ed)" in 1642.

Given that the Kingdom of Great Britain didn't come into existence until 1707, when the Acts of Union ratified the 1706 Treaty of Union and merged the parliaments of England and Scotland, that is quite a feat.

I must congratulate David Pope on his excellent explanation of the Canadian election in cartoon form (Pope's View, October 24).

It's by far the best explanation of Canadian politics, regional views, and the leading players I've seen.

The comment about their still using first-past-the-post voting was wonderful.

There has been some discussion that Steve Smith would be welcomed back into the captain's spot when his ban expires but why?

Paine seems to have done a pretty good job as captain and hasn't been rubbed out so why should he be removed from the job?

Let's play a straight bat to this silly idea.

N Ellis (Letters, October 25) claims commercial radio has had fun satirising Greta Thunberg's "how dare you" challenge.

Sorry, N Ellis, linking commercial radio and satire (a skilful use of humour to point out an uncomfortable truth), is an unambiguous and obvious oxymoron.

Thank you for the explanation of your background Dave Roberts (Letters, October 25).

I shall resist the temptation to reply for now and leave the letters page to others.

Let's have round two when Terry next dips his hand in his pocket again.

Email: letters.editor@canberratimes.com.au. Send from the message field, not as an attachment. Fax: 6280 2282. Mail: Letters to the Editor, The Canberra Times, PO Box 7155, Canberra Mail Centre, ACT 2610.

Keep your letter to 250 or fewer words. References to Canberra Times reports should include date and page number. Letters may be edited. Provide phone number and full home address (suburb only published).

To send a letter via the online form, click or touch here.