The major review of the Official Information Act, now under way, is none too soon.
Dame Beverley Wakem, the Chief Ombudsman, is to scrutinise the way the public sector has used the OIA.
Given what has already emerged, the findings are likely to be dismal.
The Act, supposedly a positive part of open information, has been cynically and regularly abused.
Twelve government agencies have been selected for formal review and another 63 and all ministers' offices have been asked to complete a detailed survey.
Input is also being sought from past and present public servants, Opposition parties, journalists, academics and others.
What has been alarming has been the way some agencies, including their so-called ''communications'' officers, have increasingly seen themselves as part of the Government rather than public servants.
The delays, obfuscations and other tactics have increasingly been in aid of preventing any embarrassment or awkwardness for the Government rather than helping the free flow of information.
This, of course, occurs not just with direct Government agencies.
Other organisations subject to the Act and its local government equivalent are often reluctant to comply with the Act's spirit let alone its letter, although there are exceptions.
As Beverley Wakem has said: ''The effective operation of the OIA is crucial to our system of open and democratic government.''
She says the review, first announced in August and under way just before Christmas, would scrutinise how things are currently operating and set out a framework for systemic improvement where deficiencies are identified.
One of the issues to be investigated was government departments seeking approval from ministers to release information when there was no reason to do so. This has arisen as a blatant example of politicisation of the Act.
The process and the report and its follow-up will be a test for Dame Beverley. Given she finds issues - and it's almost impossible to believe she will not - she should not be conciliatory and understanding.
That softly, softly approach will not work when up against political self-interest and the increasingly partisan public service.
Governments want to control information as part of their power strategies.
The cost of being seen to abuse public information has to be higher than the perceived gain from secrecy.
Dame Beverley is, ultimately, the public's watchdog and she has to speak to power.
If anyone is not beholden to Prime Minister John Key and the Government it has to be her.
This is where the public comes in.
They need to know that democracy does, indeed, rely on access to information and that power must not be abused.
They need to make that clear to any Government and particularly the Prime Minister's office given the performance of its staff over Phil Goff, the SIS and Cameron Slater.
John Key himself in November even admitted ministers wait the apparent maximum 20 working days to respond to requests because that was in the Government's interests.
The Act actually says responses should be as soon as practicable and not less than 20 days.
Too many agencies and ministers are mocking the Act and should be accountable for that.
They are deliberately taking the sting out of issues so information is no longer timely. In some cases information emerges after decisions are made and the chance of informed public debate has passed.
There have, for example, been allegations about Customs deliberately rejecting information requests so they languish in appeals at the Ombudsman's Office.
The police in South Auckland were found to be hiding suspect statistics by burying OIA requests. The list goes on.
New Zealand Herald investigative journalist David Fisher believes deterioration accelerated with Helen Clark's third-term Government in 2005.
He has described how the helpfulness of public servants has evaporated and increasingly the relationship between those seeking information and public servants has become adversarial - to the detriment of good and open government.
New Zealand was among the world leaders in this area 32 years ago when the Act was introduced. Sadly, it now lags badly.
