„SLUŽBENA TAJNA STROGE POVERLJIVOSTI“

Da bi to potvrdili ne moramo tražiti veb sajt Vlade neke države koja je stara sofisticirana demokratija,

A što ne bi? Zato što "nam" ne ide u prilog teze, ili zato što "nas" mrzi? ;>

Naime, ovom poslovničkom odredbom predviđeno je da je praktično svaka reč izgovorena na sednici Vlade tajna. Grešim li ako kažem da ovakvo rešenje mnogo više asocira na npr. pravila o radu „tajnog dvorskog saveta" Fridriha Pruskog nego na savremene demokratske standarde o odnosima vlasti i javnosti?

Ne znam, pošalji pitanje australijskom premijeru (a siguran sam da bih u sledeća 2 minuta koliko mi je trebalo da vidim za Australiju pronašao i druge države koje se ne uklapaju u tvoju prusku tezu) da l se oseća kao Fridrih ;>


Australian Govenment
Department of the Prime Minsiter and Cabinet

... Issues may, and should, be debated vigorously within the confidential setting of the Cabinet meetings.

Confidentiality

20. The principle of collective responsibility requires that ministers should be able to express their views frankly in Cabinet meetings in the expectation that they can argue freely in private while maintaining a united front in public when decisions have been reached. This in turn requires that opinions expressed in the Cabinet and Cabinet committees, including in documents and any correspondence, are treated as confidential.

21. All attendees are responsible for ensuring that discussions at Cabinet and Cabinet committee meetings remain confidential. Ministers and officials should not disclose proposals likely to be considered at forthcoming meetings outside Cabinet-approved consultation procedures. Nor should they disclose the nature or content of the discussions or the views of individual ministers or officials expressed at the meeting itself. The detail of discussion at Cabinet and Cabinet committee meetings is not recorded in the Cabinet minutes (see Annex G – Decisions of the Cabinet).

Principles of Cabinet Government

Guiding principles: Collective decision-making and responsibility & Cabinet solidarity

The proper implementation of these two guiding principles is entirely dependent on a commitment to three important operational values: consultation, confidentiality and respect for Cabinet authority.

Da bi to potvrdili ne moramo tražiti veb sajt Vlade neke države koja je stara sofisticirana demokratija, imamo primere u susedstvu.
http://www.vlada.hr/hr/naslovnica/sjednice_i_odluke_vlade_rh/2013/75_sjednica_vlade_republike_hrvatske

A šta je tu sporno? To su Odluke, a ne "Izlaganja". Dakle pre nego se upustimo u te pruske teze, zašto ne bi pročitali šta piše:

"Izlaganja članova Vlade i drugih učesnika u radu sednice Vlade, smatraju se službenom tajnom"

Te, dakle vidimo da nije tajna šta se Odlučilo, nego šta se Izlagalo i pričalo.

Kao, cenim, svukud u svetu - pa čak i u "susedstvu".

Zaista - zašto bi javnosti bilo dostupno šta je ko pričao tijekom odlučivanja? Jedino što javnost ima da traži da zna je šta je odlučeno.

pa kad volimo tajne
mene interesuje kakva je ,,službena tajna slabe poverljivosti"

A za malo ozbiljnije čitanje (i zaključivanje) recimo - evo jednog od broojnih izvora (koji - da ne bdue opet zabune, govori o dokumentima, a ne o tajnosti diskusija)

Cabinet confidentiality
Dr Mark Rodrigues1
Politics and Public Administration Section

http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/pol/cabinetconfidentiality.pdf

The concept of Cabinet confidentiality
The origins of Cabinet confidentiality
The evolution of Cabinet confidentiality
Cabinet documents
Definitions
Issues relating to Cabinet confidentiality
The compatibility of Cabinet confidentiality with open and accountable government
Cabinet documents and freedom of information legislation
Cabinet confidentiality and court proceedings
Cabinet documents and Parliament
Parliamentary orders
Parliamentary proceedings
The treatment of Cabinet ‘leaks’ and unauthorised disclosures
The scope of Cabinet documents
Conclusion
....

Cabinet documents and freedom of information legislation

The Freedom of Information Act 1982 exempts Cabinet documents as a general category from a statutory duty to release upon request. This is a blanket exemption with no public interest test. On 13 May 2010 the Parliament amended the Act by passing the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2010. The amendments are yet to come into force.31 The new general rules for the exemption of Cabinet documents are set out in the amended s. 34:
(1) A document is an exempt document if:
(a) both of the following are satisfied:
(i) it has been submitted to the Cabinet for its consideration, or is or was proposed by a Minister to be so submitted;
(ii) it was brought into existence for the dominant purpose of submission for consideration by the Cabinet; or
(b) it is an official record of the Cabinet; or
(c) it was brought into existence for the dominant purpose of briefing a Minister on a document to which paragraph (a) applies; or
(d) it is a draft of a document to which paragraph (a), (b) or (c) applies.
(2) A document is an exempt document to the extent that it is a copy or part of, or contains an extract from, a document to which subsection (1) applies.
(3) A document is an exempt document to the extent that it contains information the disclosure of which would reveal a Cabinet deliberation or decision, unless the existence of the deliberation or decision has been officially disclosed. 32

Some have argued that the blanket protection for Cabinet documents in freedom of information legislation is antithetical to the values of open government and accountability and prevents legitimate public scrutiny of government activity.33 The Freedom of Information Act 1982 contains other specific exemptions on matters that could harm the public interest including national security, defence, international relations, the financial or property interests of the Commonwealth, the national economy, legal professional privilege and personal privacy.34 However, most of these documents are exempt from disclosure due to the harm that could be caused on their release, rather than the class of document to which they belong. Internal working documents is the only other main class-based exception from Commonwealth freedom of information law however, in the case of those documents, the Act will require the application of a standard ‘public interest test’.35 Importantly documents that will be exempt from the public interest test include the general category of Cabinet documents.

Media, civil liberty organisations and some academics criticised the exception of Cabinet documents from the public interest test when it was proposed as part of the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2009. During a Senate Committee inquiry into the Bill, some witnesses argued that the public interest test as currently operating in New Zealand which requires balancing the interests of collective responsibility in Cabinet with the need to ensure that significant documents are not unduly withheld.36 It was also suggested that the provision should be focused on the harm that might be caused by a particular document and that exceptions should be made for older and factual material.37 The lack of consideration given to the public interest in releasing a Cabinet document has been heavily criticised in the past. For example, in 1995 Anne Cossins wrote:

The absence of a public interest test under exemptions which protect such high-level documents prevents judicial scrutiny, not only of violations of an applicant's right to be informed of the affairs and decision-making processes of government, but also of whether government agencies have tried to circumvent that public interest by refusing to disclose documents. Hence the absence of the test prevents an assessment of any violation to the democratic process sought to be protected or maintained by FOI legislation.

A key issue however, is the extent to which the value of public scrutiny is balanced against the value of Cabinet as a forum for the confidential, frank and informed consideration of policy advice by government. While there may be a clear case for withholding documents that might adversely impact on vital interests of state, such as national security, the rationale for the blanket protection of less important Cabinet documents is primarily based on ‘the need to promote candour in communication and to protect the public service from captious and ill-informed public or political criticism’.39 As Moira Paterson explains, this rationale is ‘based on the notion that disclosure of a document of the type claimed to be exempt will have the consequence that persons required to provide such opinion or advice in the future will be less frank and candid in expressing their views.40 Over time, this justification has been increasingly questioned in the courts.