Such arguments treat the public with contempt.

So far this week there have been four examples. First, police chief Ken Lay revealed he will delay the November crime statistics because they are due just three days before the November 29 election.

"I don't want to be standing up doing a press conference three days out from an election, talking about what was up and what was down because of the obvious discussions that would take place," Lay said.

The discussions referred to by Lay may well be "obvious", but this does not mean they must be avoided just because of an election. On the contrary, we should embrace such discussions precisely because such figures may influence the election.

Lay (who has yet to set a foot wrong as police chief) clearly wants to avoid a repeat of the 2010 election campaign. This is understandable given Lay's predecessor, Simon Overland, faced serious questions after prematurely releasing inaccurate crime statistics.

But the problem here was not so much that Overland released the crime figures before the election. It was that they appeared to have been rushed, and were consequently inaccurate because they had not been given time to "settle".

Arguably, the act of delaying the release of information until after the election might itself equally be seen as a political act, particularly if the data in question shows a distinct trend.

In these circumstances, releasing information in accordance with a prescribed timetable would seem to be the least "political" course of action. Voters might then form their own judgments.

Second, as reported in The Age this week, Ambulance Victoria is refusing to publish paramedic response times to cardiac arrests by local government area, claiming "there is clear potential for confusion, misunderstanding or unnecessary debate".

Unnecessary debate? Should it really be up to a publicly-funded agency like Ambulance Victoria to decide which debates are necessary, or indeed which information is too confusing? Arguably, a picture based on accurate data about how well our ambulance service is performing is highly necessary – and all the more so because of the election.

Third, the Country Fire Authority is refusing to release response time data for 14 volunteer brigades because such information could lead to "misrepresentations", causing a loss of confidence in the agency. On what basis such information might be misrepresented is not made clear.

Fourth, this week Commissioner for Children and Young People Bernie Geary said he would not be releasing his investigation into the sexual exploitation of children in residential care ahead of the November poll because he did not want it to be politicised or "part of the machinations of the election campaign".

Again, exactly why this would be a bad thing is not made clear. Presumably the report's conclusions are important. Surely a debate during the campaign would be no bad thing.

There is a common thread running through these examples. That is, the agencies or individuals seeking to deny information appear to suggest that information, discussion and debate are necessarily not in the public interest. The underlying inference is that the public are not equipped to form their own judgments. Better perhaps to stick with the official taxpayer funded "information" campaigns?