Our government needs to be more transparent with 'secret' intelligence

Rather than a full disclosure of the record, everyday citizens must rely on parliamentary committees or special commissions to investigate in their stead, under the strict proviso that much of the information remains secret. The recent Australian inquiry into intelligence material prior to the Iraq war involved just one day of public hearings. After that, its proceedings moved behind firmly closed doors.

No doubt the final report, eventually released in March, went some way toward restoring confidence in government decision-making. But this partial disclosure is the equivalent of unwrapping a chocolate bar you never get to eat. The public cannot indulge its democratic right to an informed assessment of the government's policy without access to all the valuable facts.

Washington's independent commission into the 11 September terrorist attacks in the US is at least holding more open sessions. But thanks to the dictates of state secrecy, even these proceedings are subject to manipulation.

Condoleezza Rice, the US National Security Advisor, appeared before the inquiry recently for entirely political reasons. She had already given testimony during a closed-session earlier in the year. If this had been open, the general population would have already known something about inner workings of the White House leading up to the atrocities in New York and Washington.

Now, conveniently, just as the Bush Administration needs a platform to counter growing criticism that it initially ignored the al-Qa'ida menace, Rice is finally allowed to appear in public session.

Ever since Richard Clarke, the administration's former anti-terrorism supremo, took to the airwaves last month claiming Bush failed to acknowledge the terrorist threat before 11 September and then misdirected the American response in the aftermath, a new narrative has taken hold in Washington. The popular perception of a capable, decisive leader, steering a wounded nation beyond a devastating and unanticipated attack has been tarnished.

Instead, many political observers tell a sordid tale of a President obsessed with old enmities, pursuing fantastical missile shields while ignoring growing threats (and mostly while on holiday - Bush has spent some 40 per cent of his presidency at one of his official recreational retreats).

Bush's post-11 September record is central to his re-election strategy. Rice went into the inquiry to bolster his fading credibility, dropping a few coy references to secret briefings and a lack of "actionable" intelligence.

And in the end, Americans and the world community at large know a little bit more, and yet a whole lot less.

A similar contempt for the public right to know is evident in Australia. The Government uses the shroud of state secrecy to hide its own failings. Respecting public intelligence demands that the world's leading democracies maintain a more robust commitment to transparency. If our rulers persist with such fulsome arrogance, we can only conclude that they are disloyal.