IN A cynical world, good deeds often get punished. But it would be a pity if that fate befell the Freedom of Information Bill, published on Monday.

If enacted, this legislation would turn one of the most secretive Western political systems into one of the most open.

Officials will have to presume in favour of openness unless this would injure the public interest, the exact opposite of the current practice. While there are flaws, it compares very well with access laws in other countries

The creation of an Information Commissioner, whose role is to help the public get at the truth, is the Bill's most important aspect.

If a request for information is denied, the applicant may appeal to the Commissioner, who is duty-bound to presume in favour of disclosure unless the case against it is sufficiently strong.

The onus of proof that disclosure would damage the public interest is placed on the body refusing access.

Journalists are concerned that the Bill will allow ministers dealing with security and foreign affairs to issue secrecy certificates which prevent the Commissioner from examining a request for information.

HOWEVER, the Bill provides an appeal process for these difficult cases. Ministers must satisfy themselves that the matter is "of sufficient sensitivity or seriousness" to justify the certificate. This decision may be challenged in the High Court.

On that point the Bill already has one unique characteristic. Most reforming legislation is blunted in the drafting process by the competing concerns of other government departments. One minister's bright idea gets ground down as others find that it conflicts with their own designs. However, this Bill actually became stronger since the original draft was publicised.

Under the "heads of the Bill" ministers could issue secrecy certificates which could not be effectively challenged in the courts. This `safeguard' was inserted at the behest of the Department of Justice where secrecy is the catchword. But the bargaining power of that Department waned when it came under fire for not informing Judge Dominic Lynch of his removal from the Special Criminal Court bench.

Greater openness might have prevented that lapse and the lesson was not lost on the drafters. They then felt able to allow a means by which the secrecy certificates could be challenged in law.

Genuine concerns still remain that these certificates will be misused. The conduct of security matters requires greater public scrutiny than those concerned with it are willing to allow. Thus it is depressing that the Bill does not say when its provisions will apply to the Garda Siochana.

It is undeniable that the Garda keeps secrets in the public interest. But not all its activities fall under that category. Shedding more light on the force could well increase public confidence in it.

There has been criticism that the list of exemptions to freedom of information in the Bill is extremely long. This may well have missed the point because there is a paradox at the heart of freedom of information legislation. Very often, more clauses mean less restraint.

In the interests of greater openness, it is better that the exemptions are tightly rather than loosely defined. The stricter the definition, the more difficult it is to hide information which should be in the public domain. That inevitably requires long lists of specific exemptions. A shorter Bill would almost certainly have meant a more restrictive one.

In European terms, this legislation would place Ireland among the more open states of the EU, such as the Netherlands and Denmark. It is likely to provide Irish citizens with more and quicker access to information than their German or French counterparts.

It also compares well with North American access laws. In the United States, under the Reagan presidency, the range of classified information was widely extended, bogging down requests for official information in the courts.

Freedom of information is, however, only one of the elements required to open up our political system, albeit a key one. The Supreme Court decision on cabinet confidentiality draws far too tight a curtain over the decision-making process.

CABINETS need to maintain confidentiality, but ti he law is far too blunt an instrument to enforce it.

The best guarantee of cabinet confidentiality is the determination of government ministers to maintain it. The Government's promise to reform this matter by referendum remains unfulfilled.

The lukewarm response to the Freedom of Information Bill probably stems from the failure of this government to fulfil promises like that. When she publicised the Bill on Monday, Eithne Fitzgerald promised -"early developments" on government confidentiality.

These would need to be very early. Her Government has much distance to make up in the relatively short time before it leaves office.the next election.