Anyway, hope you are well. I like to read your posts. They always make me stop and think.

I agree with you: my sense is it is not what the Danks Committee imagined. They argued that making information available is not a nice-to-have but core to democratic and accountable government, because a better-informed public can participate more effectively in the democratic process.

So protecting it under 'decision to be made', not 'free and frank exchange'? Cause we have no definition of free and frank: apparently, everyone knows what it is when they see it, or when they give it. 😆

My read of Danks is that information belongs presumptively to the public, not the Executive; secrecy must be justified case-by-case, which is not the same as saying the Executive doesn't resource the function properly, so we can't release stuff. x

Said in the spirit of service, etc, etc, was it though? A close read of Danks' report suggests that what was intended was full transparency and disclosure, unless there is a very, very good and specific reason not to release information.

The political equivalent of a cat who’s burned through nine lives, found nine more, and still keeps pulling Willie Wonka golden tickets out of the litter tray.

In public policy terms, I’m a devolutionist. Get decisions closer to where solutions are delivered. But, absolutely not to clowns like this one. Absolutely not.