Open Government journal
There is some useful and amusing material in the latest edition of , an ejournal edited by .
A shrewd analysis of the in New Zealand contains one particularly nice nugget for all students of the tricky relationship between government and media.
Papers released under the Official Information Act seem to have a certain cachet. Journalists apparently suspect that the government sometimes releases papers stamped 'Released under the Official Information Act', as if someone had requested them and forced their disclosure, whereas in fact no one has - the aim being to get journos interested in material they would otherwise ignore. Well, we wouldn't fall for that, would we?
There's also a report of a recent conference of academics interested in using FOI. I enjoyed their suggestion that FOI charges should be waived for members of the academic community. Personally I've always thought that FOI charges should be waived for people called Rosenbaum.
A former state official in Ontario explains how he coped with the Canadian FOI law, by keeping no records or emails. His motto: 'Carry all your information in your head, that way no one can get at it.' (I have to say however that in my experience people's heads are not reliable receptacles for long-term storage of information).
There are also some useful articles by solicitors specialising in FOI about case decisions so far and the precedents they have created for future use of FOI.
Ibrahim Hasan describes why these mean that 'public sector employees ... can no longer expect total confidentiality' on what they might previously have thought was their personal information.
Marcus Turle summarises how FOI decisions have poked numerous holes in the notion of commercial confidentiality. He is sympathetic to public sector suppliers who are uncomfortable about the level of disclosure of their information which they now face. He describes their environment as 'perilously rocky'. However he doesn't refer to the point that FOI applies just as much to their competitors. Or to mix metaphors, does it matter if the landscape is perilously rocky as long as it is also a level playing field?
A 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
Marcus, many thanks for those points.
I entirely agree that this is an important issue worthy of debate, and I look forward to your next article.
But I feel there is also another angle when talking of what rights companies have in relation to FOI - and that is their right to information, including possibly about other companies.
Indeed, it seems to me that the presumption in favour of secrecy in respect of public sector suppliers goes far too far. Bids for public contracts, and contracts entered into by public bodies, should never be protected by commercial confidentiality, because the public interest in their being open is overwhelming. After all, they are contracts, often huge contracts, being paid for with public money. Companies worrying about confidentiality should just understand that this openness is a price of bidding for valuable public sector work.
Of course this doesn't affect Marcus's point one way or another, since if this change were effected, the companies would bid in the full knowledge that the bids were public.
I run a small business that regularly tenders for government contracts & so find this an interesting debate. It seems to me there are 2 issues:
1) That the details (including prices) of a successful bid for a public contract should be made public seems clear. Ratepayers/taxpayers/voters should know how their money is being spent.
2) A separate question is whether all bids for a public tender shoul be made public. I'm torn but I think, on balance, I am in favour of it.
It would make public procurement a very transparent process and would focus the minds of those making the decisions. It could also have a very interesting effect on private companies making bids - will it make them less likely to exxagerate or distort, knowing their competitors will see the bid?
Very interesting. I must start making some foi requests on bids we have been involved in.
Henry Stewart
I agree there are compelling arguments for company information being susceptible to disclosure under FOIA. Unfortunately, I also think the counter-arguments tend to get neglected.
For example, whilst it may seem obvious that price should always be disclosable, this won't necessarily be the case where disclosure could lead to everyone charging the same - i.e. where you end up with quasi-cartel. This is particularly relevant in sectors where there are very few suppliers, or where a public authority uses a panel of advisors.
There is also quite an interesting argument that in many cases companies are far better placed to judge whether an exemption applies, or how particular public interest factors weigh in the context of the request.
There is also the risk that public authorities simply misinterpret the rules, or fail to apply them altogether.
For these reasons (and others) I find it surprising that companies do not have more legal rights under the FOI and EIR regimes.
Marcus.