Australia ends confusion about OGP: firmly on the fence, thank you.

Minister for Finance Cormann in Senate Estimates last week cleared up any lingering uncertainty about Australia's current position regarding the Open Government Partnership. 

Australia hasn't joined, and hasn't made a decision to join or not join.

To be in this position almost three years after the initial invitation puts us out of step with more than sixty other countries that have signed on, including from the G 20 that we chair this year, the US, Brazil, UK, Indonesia and Mexico ( who have all played OGP leadership roles), Argentina Canada, France, Italy, Korea, South Africa and Turkey. That's before we get to Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, NZ, Sweden, the Philippines and plenty of African and South American countries. Others that we encourage along the path to good governance including Myanmar and PNG are showing an interest as well. 

Of the G7 countries that endorsed the Open Data Charter in 2013 calling for government data sets to be open by default, only Germany and Japan aren't currently OGP members.

The glimpse into our thinking about the OGP reveals a lack of interest, enthusiasm and urgency, and the low priority Canberra attaches to an international initiative designed to improve democratic practices at home and abroad.

In response to a series of questions from Senator John Faulkner (left) who  raised the OGP issue with PM&C, AGD and Finance during the week, Minister Cormann left no doubt where we stand. Time and time again:

• "It is a matter that is currently under consideration...."

• "we are not in the process of joining.."

• "At this stage Australia has not formally joined the open government partnership. And the previous government did not. The previous government gave an indication that it was committed to joining, but it did not actually formally join. So this is a matter that we are now considering to give consideration to...(sic)"

• "the previous government expressed an intention to join.They did not finalise that and proceed to the ultimate joining, and at this stage we are considering how to progress this from here. We have not made a decision not to join but we also have not made a positive decision to join....

• "we have not decided yet on whether we will or will not proceed with that intention to join..."

• "we have not actually made a decision..."

The Minister made it clear that Finance Secretary David Tune (who has since announced his retirement apparently for other reasons) was off target in relying on information on the OGP website to tell Senator Faulkner: "There are 64 participating countries in the OGP, of which 57 have joined and seven are in the process of joining...We are one of the seven." No we aren't said the Minister, confirming that the related statement on the OGP website that Australia is one of 10 countries that comprise Cohort 4 and will join in April 2014 "is not right as far as Australia is concerned." Minister Cormann was less fussed about a reference to May 2015. 

By the way, the OGP appears to have jumped well ahead of where Minister Cormann finds himself, announcing last week that Daniel Stewart, an ANU law academic had been recruited to undertake the Independent Review of Australia's National Action Plan. That's a plan we need to develop if and when we decide to join.

There wasn't a word from the minister or officials about what has prompted the overall lack of enthusiasm for the cause and our adopted position on the fence.  

The Open Government Partnership is "a global effort to make governments more open and responsive." That sounds like a universally shared democratic value.  

Things appear to have changed since September when the White House made this statement supportive of the OGP and the principles that underpin it on behalf of 20 governments including Australia.
  And since October/ November when according to these Department of Finance documents released to me in April in response to an FOI application, officials were saying

the Government (has been) briefed about OGP, and agreement (now reached) at least in principle across several departments and Ministerial offices that this is a good thing to pursue. Next steps will be continuing to work through the process to get formal endorsement to pursue OGP membership, formal delegation of responsibility to Finance, more consultation on the approach, and hopefully the ability to launch a consultation in the coming month or so. We need to have our National Action Plan developed by April 2014, so the timeline is tight, but doable.

Hmm.

Not that there is much effort going into pondering our situation.

John Sheridan First Assistant Secretary and Procurement Coordinator told Senator Faulkner the work in Finance on the OGP is "done by myself and one of my direct reports, an EL2 who works on these matters and related Gov2.0 matters, and she is occasionally assisted by one of my other staff, a more junior staff member who works on related IT matters." Around five per cent of Sheridan's time, and all up "half an FTE at the most."

As to the previously described (months ago by Attorney General Brandis no less and reiterated in AGD Estimates earlier in the week) "interagency meetings" of officials, Mr Sheridan now says "I am hesitant to call it formally an interagency committee as opposed to just a series of meetings." The Minister took this up:

Senator Cormann: But Senator Faulkner, we don't want to get caught up in semantics either. One person's meeting is another person's committee. Let us say that there have been interdepartmental committees, even though they might have been slightly more on the informal side than on the structured side.

Senator FAULKNER: What you are saying—and I am just trying to establish the facts here—is that there is no formal IDC. Is that a fair comment to make?

Senator Cormann: That is right, and there has not been previously.

Mr Sheridan : No, Minister, there hasn't.

An indication of the informality of the gatherings perhaps: in responding to my FOI request for the record of the three inter agency meetings Attorney General Brandis said had been held last year Attorney General's Department told me they only had a record of one of the three!

Departments involved in the less than formal chitchat apparently are AGD, Finance, PM&C, Communications, DFAT, DRET,, Archives and (vale) OAIC. 

Hope someone has better records than AGD.
 

Senator Faulkner spoke for all those who share his interest in integrity and open, transparent and accountable government when he said towards the end of the session

I am very, very disappointed that we are not strongly committed to progressing a very active role in the OGP. I am very, very disappointed with the proposed policy changes in the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and the like.... I have had a longstanding interest, as I think you and perhaps officials would know about, in Australia's commitment to the OGP and broadly in relation to transparency and accountability measures in government...... My views on this have been expressed publicly and consistently for a very long time and probably have not found a lot of favour with the current government or the previous government.....My intention is to try to progress these matters and ask questions as I am asking. And I flagged with you and the department that I will continue to ask questions...

 Senator Faulkner earlier in the week in Attorney General's Estimates established that responsibility for the OGP had been transferred from that department to Finance on 1 April, but no one including the Attorney General could add much by way of explanation other than Senator Cormann "was quite eager that policy leadership in relation to the Open Government Partnership lie within his portfolio." Finance Secretary Tune referred to the OGP fit with the department's "ICT functions."

The PM and the invitation to Bali  
As to Australian participation in Bali OGP Asia Pacific Regional Conference, officials from Prime Minister and Cabinet responded to questions from Senator Dastyari and Senator Faulkner with the news that the Prime Minister was invited to attend by President Yudhoyono on 19 March, and that we told the Indonesians he wouldn't be going on 2 May, days before meetings commenced. 

John Sheridan of Finance said the PM had been invited to the OGP Steering Committee meeting that preceded the regional meeting.

Officials from PM&C had no knowledge of invitations to the Attorney General, Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Minister for Finance. When asked, Attorney General Brandis couldn't recall receiving an invitation but intends to inquire further. John Sheridan confirmed the Finance Minister had been invited to the Regional Conference.

In the end Sheridan was our only representative in an 'observer' capacity.

Below in the order in which the hearings took place are the relevant extracts from the Estimates Transcripts for PM&C, AGD, and Finance. 

Estimates have another week to go. Maybe the issue will be raised with Communications, given the Minister's interest in open data, and Foreign Affairs given the foreign policy interests involved. 

So far it's not a pretty picture.

Prime Minister and Cabinet

Senator DASTYARI: There is a proposed visit by the Prime Minister to Indonesia for the open government partnership conference. Broadly, my understanding is that at some point in time President Yudhoyono invited the Prime Minister to attend the open government partnership conference in Bali. Do you have the date that the Prime Minister was invited?

Dr McCarthy : It was 19 March.

Senator DASTYARI: So on 19 March the Prime Minister is invited to attend?

Dr McCarthy : That is right.

Senator DASTYARI: Is it a letter, or does it come through the ambassador? What is the process for these things?

Dr McCarthy : It can vary. It can sometimes be a formal letter; it can sometimes be an invitation conveyed, as you indicated, through the embassy. It can take a variety of forms.

Senator DASTYARI: In this case was it a letter or did it come from the embassy? Take it on notice—it is much of a muchness. It is a matter of fact that he was invited, obviously.

Dr McCarthy : I do not have the information on how the invitation arrived.

Senator DASTYARI: Obviously it goes without saying that the Prime Minister, through his office and the department, accepted the invitation initially, is that correct?

Dr McCarthy : No, that is not correct.

Senator DASTYARI: So, the Prime Minister never accepted to attend it?

Dr McCarthy : The invitation was under consideration. It is not unusual.

Senator DASTYARI: I am just going from the media articles at the time. They implied that he was going to Indonesia and then a decision was made to not go to Indonesia. You are saying that was not quite right, that he was never necessarily going.

Dr McCarthy : The invitation was under consideration.

Senator DASTYARI: Explain to me how that works.

Dr McCarthy : Often it is not clear whether the Prime Minister is going to be able to accept an invitation. It depends on other commitments the Prime Minister may have around the time. And, as you are aware, the Prime Minister was unable to accept the invitation because of domestic commitments.

Senator DASTYARI: I am perhaps misunderstanding. There was certainly at one point an expectation that the Prime Minister would be attending, and then a decision was made to not attend. You are saying that is not an accurate reflection of what happened.

Dr McCarthy : I think you are referring to speculation in the newspaper.

Senator DASTYARI: I certainly am, yes.

Dr McCarthy : The invitation was received, it was under consideration, and the Prime Minister decided he was unable to take up the invitation.

Senator DASTYARI: When did the Prime Minister advise you that he was unable to attend?

Dr McCarthy : On 2 May.

Senator DASTYARI: And when was the conference?

Dr McCarthy : The conference was to be held on 6 and 7 May.

Senator DASTYARI: And you are saying that it is common that four days beforehand the Prime Minister does not have plans about whether he is going to attend or not attend an international conference?

Dr McCarthy : I do not have a record in front of me of the timings in relation to these things, but it was a particularly busy time, as you know, pre-budget. And it was not clear when the invitation was received whether the Prime Minister would be able to accept, and he decided in the end that he was unable to accept it.

Senator FAULKNER: But departmental staff had made arrangements to accompany him, hadn't they?

Dr McCarthy : I think contingency arrangements had been made, but no decision had been taken.

Senator FAULKNER: No, but departmental staff had made arrangements to accompany the Prime Minister to Bali for 6 and 7 May.

Senator Abetz: In the event that he was to accept.

Senator DASTYARI: You do not see this as strange that four days before—

Dr McCarthy : I agree with what the minister says.

Senator FAULKNER: How many staff had made those arrangements—

Dr McCarthy : I do not have—

Senator FAULKNER: from your department—the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet? I am assuming officials from other departments would also have been involved. Is that true? To your knowledge, did the planning for the trip involve officials from other agencies as well?

Dr McCarthy : The contingency plan?

Senator FAULKNER: Yes, contingency planning. I am happy with that.

Dr McCarthy : To my knowledge, the contingency planning did not involve staff from other departments.

Senator FAULKNER: It only involved staff from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet?

Dr McCarthy : That is right.

Senator FAULKNER: PM&C is not the lead agency for the Open Government Partnership, is it?

Dr McCarthy : No, but had the Prime Minister decided to take up the invitation it would normally be the case that the Prime Minister's delegation would include members of his department.

Senator FAULKNER: Sure, I totally accept that and understand that. In this case, you were saying to us, contingency planning did not include other agencies, only PM&C?

Dr McCarthy : That is right.

Senator FAULKNER: Can you confirm which agency is the lead agency for the OGP, as far as Australia is concerned?

Dr McCarthy : That is the Department of Finance.

Senator DASTYARI: So, on 2 May you were advised that the Prime Minister would not be attending. I assume 2 May was when it was conveyed to the Indonesian government would not be attending. Is that correct?

Dr McCarthy : I believe so.

Senator DASTYARI: Who represented the Prime Minister in his absence?

Dr McCarthy : The conference was attended by a senior official from the Department of Finance, Mr Sheridan.

Senator FAULKNER: Other ministers, of course, had been invited in the absence of the Prime Minister, hadn't they?

Senator DASTYARI: So, no other minister went?

CHAIR: One question at a time.

Dr McCarthy : I am not aware that that is the case.

Senator FAULKNER: Ms Bishop had not been invited, as the foreign minister?

Dr McCarthy : Not to my knowledge.

Senator FAULKNER: Senator Brandis as the Attorney-General had not been invited?

Dr McCarthy : Not to my knowledge.

Senator FAULKNER: Senator Cormann as the finance minister had not been invited?

Dr McCarthy : Not to my knowledge.

Senator FAULKNER: Given that the Prime Minister was not able to go, why did an official from the Department of Finance attend and not an official from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet?

Dr McCarthy : As you have pointed out, the Prime Minister's department is not the lead agency for the Open Government Partnership. So, under the circumstances, given that the Prime Minister was unable to attend, the lead agency sent a representative to participate in the discussions.

Senator FAULKNER: Did you have contingency plans to attend that one?

Dr McCarthy : Had the Prime Minister attended?

Senator FAULKNER: Yes. Had the Prime Minister attended, did you, Dr McCarthy, have contingency plans—and I am using your terminology, which is fine—to accompany him.

Dr McCarthy : Yes.Prime Minister and Cabinet.....
Senator FAULKNER: I do have a final question—not about that but about the OGP. I wondered if there had been any internal work in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in terms of preparation for a presentation for a speech of the Prime Minister at the Bali meeting—that is part 1 of the question. And part 2 of the question is, what is your understanding of Australia's attitude to the OGP? Does it actually support it?

CHAIR: I will ask you to take that on notice,


.........................................
Attorney General's Department

Senator FAULKNER: This is a matter about which I have raised questions at this estimates before. Witnesses might recall it—it is the Open Government Partnership. This will only take a minute or two, so I do not think it is going to delay the committee. Mr Wilkins, can you confirm that the Attorney-General's Department is no longer the lead agency for this matter in government? As I understand, it is now the Department of Finance.

Mr Wilkins : That is correct.

Senator FAULKNER: Can you tell me just when that change was made—to transfer that responsibility to the Department of Finance? It only came to my attention very recently. I am assuming it is just a matter of weeks. Can someone confirm that?

Mr Wilkins : On 1 April, the Prime Minister wrote to the Attorney-General.

Senator FAULKNER: You have indicated that it is the result of a decision by the Prime Minister. Are you or the minister able to briefly explain what the basis for the change was? My questions in relation to this matter will now be asked to the relevant department, given that responsibility has been transferred. However, as some departmental resources were obviously involved in this, about which you, Mr Wilkins, have spoken in this estimates previously, I will put this question to you. The only other issue I am keen to follow up is what that transfer of resources might have meant and whether any staff have been transferred. First of all, though, if either the minister or the secretary is able to explain why the decision was made, that would assist.

Mr Wilkins : I do not think I can take you a long way on that. Where it should sit has been discussed both by this and the previous government. There were various people on the list and it was decided, I guess, that Finance had a wider view of information policy.

Senator FAULKNER: Thank you for that, Mr Wilkins. Can you help me any further with that, Minister? I appreciate that issues pertaining to government transparency, or open government, if you like, are issues that are of interest to a whole range of portfolios. It is certainly true, in relation to the Department of Finance, that they have responsibilities. If you are able to assist me any further, I would appreciate it, Minister.

Senator Brandis: I cannot really add to what Mr Wilkins has said. A decision was made that that is where it would sit within government. As you know, when a new government comes to office, a review is made of the administrative arrangements and the arrangements within the government as to where various tasks and functions sit, and that was one of the decisions made in the course of that exercise.

Senator FAULKNER: But those administrative arrangements in the large were obviously changed much earlier than 1 April 2014. In other words, that is a later change than most of the changes to administrative arrangements, which I am sure you would acknowledge. I just thought there may be a special reason as to why there was an awareness and, in your portfolio, why the changes were made. If there is not, I can try to establish it elsewhere. The point I am making is that most of the administrative arrangements—nearly all of them apart from this—were made very soon after the new government was sworn in. This one, as Mr Wilkins has said, was made on 1 April 2014.

Senator Brandis: I hear what you say. I can add to my answer that I understand that Senator Cormann, as Minister for Finance, was quite eager that policy leadership in relation to the Open Government Partnership lie within his portfolio.

Senator FAULKNER: Thank you for that. As I have indicated, I can certainly ask Senator Cormann and his department questions about this, and I do not want to delay this committee. I would ask the secretary if he is able to assist me—or if anyone else can assist me—with whether this meant that there were any transfers of staff involved, or was it effectively just an administrative function that goes from one agency to another?

Mr Wilkins : It was an express term of the change that resources did not change hands.

Senator FAULKNER: So no resources changed hands. What about the background work that had been undertaken in Finance? How is there an awareness in those circumstances in the agency that is newly responsible for the function? How is that dealt with? Was it dealt with?

Mr Wilkins : In any case where this happens, it would be consultations and discussions amongst officers and through the exchange of information, if appropriate, and files et cetera could be exchanged. I would imagine that that is what has occurred. I have not directly concerned myself with exactly what has been transferred.

Senator FAULKNER: So we do not delay the committee, could I ask you to take on notice for me—and of course you can only deal with your own agency—any resources or files, as mentioned, and the like that might have been transferred to Finance and whether that actually occurred. I appreciate the evidence you have provided, but I do not want to delay the committee. I am just interested in ensuring, if you like, that there is a continuity of agency or departmental action on these matters.

Mr Wilkins : I can get one of these gentlemen here, if you like, to tell you exactly what did occur.

Senator FAULKNER: That would be particularly helpful.

Mr Fredericks : I think part of the relevant background to your question in the fact that, in a sense, the work had been taken forward under the auspice of an interagency meeting, of which Finance was a part. Historically, there had been three interagency meetings to discuss this development, in which Finance was a full participant. In addition to that, I should just note that at the last major summit of the Open Government Partnership, which occurred in London in November of last year, Australia was represented by a representative of Finance. So Finance have been fully seized of this endeavour over the last six to nine months working with us, and that is the basis of their engagement to date and will be the basis of their engagement going forward.

Senator FAULKNER: I will place a question on notice. What information and material, if any, was involved in that transfer of responsibility? You mentioned interagency meetings. Is AGD still involved in any interagency meetings? Could you confirm that for me?

Mr Fredericks : Our expectation is that we will be.

Senator FAULKNER: Was that an expectation as opposed to a certainty? I noticed your use of language, Mr Fredericks. I always take account of the language you use.

Mr Fredericks : It is an expectation I expect to be realised.

Senator FAULKNER: I will not even ask you what that means. The interagency meetings involve AGD, Finance and which other portfolio?

Mr Fredericks : PM&C and Communications.

Senator FAULKNER: Not DFAT?

Mr Fredericks : Yes, sorry. DFAT and DRET as well.

Senator FAULKNER: Thank you for that. Finally, Minister, was there any proposal for you to attend the Bali meeting planned for 6 and 7 May? I think you are aware the Prime Minister decided not to attend. Given the role of your department, I wondered if there had been any invitation for you or an Attorney-General's department official to attend.

Senator Brandis: In relation to myself, I do not recall receiving an invitation but I will check to make sure that that is so. I will take that on notice but, to the best of my recollection, no. In relation to officers of the department, Mr Wilkins might be able to help you.

Mr Wilkins : Apparently, we did not attend. I am not aware as to whether we received an invitation; but we did not attend.

Senator FAULKNER: If there is any further information that you can provide the committee after checking, I would appreciate it. I thank the witnesses for that information. Appreciating that this agency is no longer the lead agency for this particular element of government, please follow those other matters through.

................................
Finance

Senator FAULKNER: Thank you, Chair. Mr Tune, I want to ask a few questions on the new responsibility the Department of Finance has in relation to being the lead agency for the Open Government Partnership.

Mr Tune : I will get Mr Sheridan to come to the table; he can assist you, Senator.

Senator FAULKNER: Thank you, Mr Tune. My understanding is that agency responsibility for the OGP was transferred from the Attorney-General's Department to the Department of Finance on 1 April this year. Can that be confirmed?

Senator Cormann: That is right.

Senator FAULKNER: Are you able to say what are effectively the reasons for the change? Perhaps I should go back a step and ask: who is the decision maker in that regard?

Senator Cormann: The ultimate decision maker for everything and anything that happens in government is obviously the Prime Minister. But the decision was made by government that this was the appropriate place for this responsibility to reside given our responsibilities generally, on a whole-of-government basis, in relation to ICT matters and the like.

Senator FAULKNER: You have stepped there into the reason for the decision being made—

Senator Cormann: Which was your question, I thought.

Senator FAULKNER: I took a step back and asked 'Who?' but I appreciate that—

Senator Cormann: I answered both.

Senator FAULKNER: I accept that, and you are right to make the point that the buck always ends up with the Prime Minister on these sorts of things. Fair enough. But let me ask you then as the minister responsible for the Department of Finance whether you are pleased to see your own agency having that responsibility. Do you think it fits well?

Senator Cormann: I think it is a very good fit indeed.

Senator FAULKNER: Excellent; I am pleased to hear that. Perhaps before I go to the details I might ask whether you as the Minister for Finance are committed to Australia's involvement in the Open Government Partnership—and I would be pleased to hear that. To be frank with you, Minister, the reason I ask is that I have read at least one article in the newspapers that indicates that that is certainly not the case. So perhaps we could clear that up before we move on.

Senator Cormann: I would not say that it is not the case. It is a matter that is currently under consideration. As you would be aware, the previous government had decided to join the Open Government Partnership, though it had not actually actively joined. Our government has continued to send representatives to meetings of the Open Government Partnership, as I am sure you would be aware. We have done that in an observer capacity while we are considering whether to formally join the Open Government Partnership into the future.

Senator FAULKNER: I might come back to that. But perhaps I could ask you or an official at the table to indicate to me what the current status of Australia's involvement is.

Senator Cormann: I will ask officials to add to my answer. But in terms of the most recent meeting the decision we made was to send an official in an observer capacity. At this stage Australia has not formally joined the open government partnership. And the previous government did not. The previous government gave an indication that it was committed to joining, but it did not actually formally join. So this is a matter that we are now considering to give consideration to. In the meantime, we are maintaining our link by sending representatives on an observer basis. I might ask Mr Sheridan to add further to that answer.

Senator FAULKNER: Before you do that, I think it is fair to make the point that the previous government did make that announcement—that is true. It is also true, as you and everyone else in this building would be well aware, that the previous government then proceeded to lose office.

Senator Cormann: That is right; I am very well aware of that.

Senator FAULKNER: So in that sense it is not as if it dropped the ball. I mean, let's be frank about it.

Senator Cormann: No; that was not my suggestion. The suggestion was that, by the time there was a change of government, Australia had not formally joined. That meant when we came into government it remained an open question for us as to how we would proceed with this. I totally accept that the previous government had made a decision to join. We have not made a decision not to join but, equally, we have not made a decision to join. In the meantime we are keeping our options open by continuing to send representatives to relevant meetings in an observer capacity while we finalise our deliberations in relation to this matter.

Senator FAULKNER: I just wanted to—

Senator Cormann: Yes, sure—in violent agreement.

Senator FAULKNER: Precisely—on that matter. But I just wanted to be clear that it was not a piece of bastardry, in that sense. I accept what you have said, and you accept what I have said. I'm sure they would have preferred to win the election than lose it.

Senator Cormann: I suspect that is right.

Senator FAULKNER: I know it to be right.

Mr Sheridan : Senator, I cannot add anything to what the minister has said. We haven't not joined. We are awaiting a government decision as to how to progress.

Senator FAULKNER: When you say we haven't joined—when I looked at the OGP's website, it has nations in what it describes as four different cohorts. You would be aware of that, Mr Sheridan?

Mr Sheridan : Yes, I am.

Senator FAULKNER: And Australia is in Cohort 4. Can you explain what, technically, that means? What is Cohort 4? What does the OGP itself understand by that, or why is that category applied to Australia?

Mr Sheridan : The cohorts refer to the year, in succession since the OGP was begun, that each nation has first indicated an intention to join. In the normal course of events, a nation that had done that would be expected to finish some things by a particular date. But our discussions with the OGP officials don't detect any difficulty with us changing that date, or re-entering the process, as it were, at some later date.

Senator Cormann: I might be able to assist you here, Senator. Essentially, Cohort 4 refers to an assumption by the Open Government Partnership that Australia would join by 1 May 2015, which may or may not happen depending on the final deliberations of the government in relation to that.

Senator FAULKNER: Thank you for that, Minister. The Open Government Partnership website, for what it's worth—and I appreciate the OGP doesn't decide Australia's membership—

Senator Cormann: That is right.

Senator FAULKNER: I totally accept that. But the website outlines—let me quote directly from it: the 10 countries that will join in April 2014 comprise Cohort 4'. That is what the website says. I appreciate what you are saying; and this is one of the reasons I am asking these questions. I am trying to establish what the status is. But I—

Senator Cormann: Senator Faulkner, I am actually looking at the website right now as we speak, and—

Senator FAULKNER: Go down to dates and deadlines.

Senator Cormann: I am looking at the map, and I am looking at Australia in brown, and I am looking at Cohort 4 and in brackets, 'joining May 2015'. But as you have quite appropriately observed, that is not a decision that will ultimately be made by the Open Government Partnership; it will be made by the Australian government on behalf of Australia.

Senator FAULKNER: While I don't have the website in front of me—and if I had more technological expertise—unlike all the other senators—I could probably find it on the computer in front of me—I can nevertheless—

Senator Cormann: You could also take my word for it!

Senator FAULKNER: And I do take your word for it. I accept that you would not mislead the committee. But you might note that on the website under 'Dates and deadlines', paragraph 4 says 'The founding 8 countries formed Cohort 1' and then it talks about seven countries in Cohort 2—

Senator Cormann: I am trying to find that, Senator Faulkner but all I can see on the opening page is a map of the world—

Senator FAULKNER: Let me pass this over to you, Minister. I may even be misreading it, I don't know. But you can have a look at that.

Senator Cormann: Yes, sure.

Senator FAULKNER: But the reason for this question is to try and understand from the perspective—

Senator Cormann: This finishes at Cohort 3. Okay, no, I see what you are saying. That is not right as far as Australia is concerned.

Senator FAULKNER: It is certainly in conflict with what you are saying. But you can clearly say that it would be wrong to make a statement that Australia is a member of the OGP. That would be an inaccurate statement; the status is as you have outlined for the committee.

Senator Cormann: That is right, yes.

Senator FAULKNER: And you pointed out that the previous government made clear its intention to join the OGP.

Senator Cormann: That's right

Senator FAULKNER: Having established that, we now know that after 1 April this year, the lead agency in government for this matter has been the Department of Finance. Historically, there was an interagency committee; I think one of the officials can confirm that—I'm sure, Mr Sheridan, you could confirm that. I am calling it an interagency committee because that is the terminology that has been used in the Attorney-General's Department, which used to be the lead agency, but it was the equivalent of an IDC or the like. Can you confirm that that was the case?

Mr Sheridan : Senator, there were essentially a series of meetings, originally hosted by AGD and then over time that responsibility has passed to us. I am hesitant to call it formally an interagency committee as opposed to just a series of meetings.

Senator FAULKNER: Fair enough. I am just using the terminology that was used with me at an estimates committee hearing today, just an hour or two ago. That was the terminology they used. But are you saying it was a more informal—

Senator Cormann: But Senator Faulkner, we don't want to get caught up in semantics either. One person's meeting is another person's committee. Let us say that there have been interdepartmental committees, even though they might have been slightly more on the informal side than on the structured side.

Senator FAULKNER: What you are saying—and I am just trying to establish the facts here—is that there is no formal IDC. Is that a fair comment to make?

Senator Cormann: That is right, and there has not been previously.

Mr Sheridan : No, Minister, there hasn't.

Senator FAULKNER: But what you might indicate, Mr Sheridan, in the informal processes that have taken place within government and within agencies is this: which agencies, apart from the Department of Finance and the Attorney-General's Department, have been involved in those informal arrangements? That would be helpful.

Mr Sheridan : Senator, it varies from meeting to meeting, but as we or the Attorney-General's Department have made clear in response to Freedom of Information requests, they have included the Attorney-General's, communications, finance, DFAT, DRET, and I think a range of other agencies from time to time—PM&C of course, the archives and, within AGD, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.

Senator FAULKNER: Can you, Mr Sheridan, or can you, Mr Tune, just let me know the extent of the departmental resources that are being applied to this function of your department at this stage? I accept it is not going to be that substantial, but I would appreciate having an understanding both of staff involvement and broader departmental resources, please.

Mr Sheridan : Senator, the work for the OGP is done by myself and one of my direct reports, an EL2 who works on these matters and related Gov2.0 matters, and she is occasionally assisted by one of my other staff, a more junior staff member who works on related IT matters.

Senator FAULKNER: Is that is three staff, effectively, or four?

Mr Sheridan : Less than an FTE; perhaps half an FTE at the most.

Senator FAULKNER: And in relation to your own responsibilities, approximately what proportion of your time would be spent on those matters?

Mr Sheridan : Maybe five per cent, Senator.

Senator FAULKNER: Would it be fair to say five per cent but not including travel to meetings, I assume? Because you represented Australia—sorry, you attended; you did not represent Australia—you attended—

Senator Cormann: I represented Australia in an observer capacity.

Senator FAULKNER: Okay, represented Australia in an observer capacity at at least one international meeting of the OGP. That is correct, isn't it?

Mr Sheridan : I did so at two meetings; one in London while I was on leave last year, and one in Bali at the beginning of May.

Senator FAULKNER: So your leave was ruined by doing work.

Mr Sheridan : Hardly ruined.

Senator FAULKNER: I suppose there would be a lot of pointy heads in the Department of Finance who would like that!

Senator Cormann: He enjoys this sort of work—it is like a holiday really!

Senator FAULKNER: I will take your word for it. So there was one meeting in London and another one in Bali.

Mr Sheridan : That is correct.

Senator FAULKNER: I appreciate that you did go to the Bali meeting, because that has also been mentioned elsewhere. The Prime Minister—as has been made clear—made a decision not to attend that meeting. Was it the intention of the Department of Finance to be represented and for you to go to that meeting prior to the Prime Minister's decision, which was made a few days—as we have just heard in PM&C estimates—

Senator Cormann: To be honest, the detail of this has not been at the front of my mind on a day-to-day basis. I would not want to mislead you by giving you inaccurate detail in terms of the sequence of events. I seem to have a recollection that it was my decision to send a representative at a public service level, but let me check that sequence of events. I certainly recall consulting with the Attorney General about how we should deal with this pending the government's deliberations around the ultimate status of the Australian government when it comes to the Open Government Partnership, but I might just want to go back to my notes to refresh my memory. Maybe I could give you some more detail on notice.

Senator FAULKNER: I would appreciate that, and thank you for it, but while we have Mr Sheridan at the table, can he tell us at least about when he got the call?

Senator Cormann: Sorry; I am not meaning to be unhelpful, but Mr Sheridan would not be able to assist you with what happened at the ministerial level in terms of motivations and decision makers. Mr Sheridan was ultimately advised as to the decision, obviously, but I do not know that he would be able to authoritatively assist you in relation to who made the decision at what point in time.

Senator FAULKNER: I am not asking him who made the decision; I am asking him what the decision's impact on him was. Let me give you some background: in estimates of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet last night, for example, I was informed by an Associate Secretary at the table that she was prepared—as were other staff—to go with Mr Abbott, when he was attending, but that a late decision was made that that was not going to be the case. I am interested to understand, first of all, whether there had been any intention for Department of Finance staff to accompany the Prime Minister, when it was planned that he was to be going. That was the first question—I thought Mr Sheridan might be able to help me with that.

Mr Sheridan : Originally, the Prime Minister was invited to a meeting on 4 and 5 May of, I think, the council for the OGP. Then there were the discussions of 6 or 7 May. The Finance Minister was always invited to 6 and 7 May and, knowing the challenges, we awaited a government decision as to who should attend on 6 and 7 May—

Senator Cormann: And we were somewhat focused on the budget, of course.

Senator FAULKNER: Yes, sure. I understand. This is what I had assumed: that you, as the relevant senior official in the department with responsibility for this, would have had plans to attend with the Finance Minister, if he had attended the meeting. I was really asking before: when did you get the call-up? That was all.

Mr Sheridan : About two weeks before, I think, Minister—sorry; Senator.

Senator FAULKNER: No; that was a long time ago!

Mr Sheridan : Indeed. Obviously, we had seen the invitations come through the department. We had passed them on to the minister. We awaited decisions, and we made plans once we knew what those decisions were.

Senator FAULKNER: What is the correct terminology for the meeting in Bali that you attended? I just want to use the correct terminology.

Mr Sheridan : It was a regional summit.

Senator FAULKNER: At the regional summit, you attended with observer status, as we heard, on behalf of Australia. To a layperson such as myself, that signifies a role of sitting there and observing, but tell me: what level of engagement does this mean you have, as the senior Australian official who was present at the meeting?

Mr Sheridan : I attended the activities throughout the two days of the meeting, the plenary sessions—where there was an option to attend one or another smaller session I attended one of each of those sessions. I attended all the available meetings and the lunch that occurred on the first day.

Senator Cormann: In the interests of completeness, I have just been advised that it was indeed my decision to send an official to that particular meeting.

Senator FAULKNER: Thank you, Minister. I assume following your attendance you then supply a report of the regional summit. Is that the intention?

Mr Sheridan : The department's procedure is for officers who travel overseas to provide a report to the secretary when they have done so.

Senator FAULKNER: Did you make any statement at the summit? That was really the import of my question.

Mr Sheridan : No.

Senator FAULKNER: Effectively, the use of the terminology 'observer status' is very appropriate in terms of the role that you play.

Senator Cormann: We are staying in the loop.

Senator FAULKNER: Yes, but as Mr Sheridan said, it is an accurate and precise descriptor of what occurred. When was the OGP informed that Australia's status at the regional summit would be observer status?

Mr Sheridan : I would have to check exactly when it was. It would be at the same time as I was informed, very shortly after that. We were in contact with the OGP secretariat and informed them as soon as we knew.

Senator FAULKNER: Yes, but I am asking when.

Mr Sheridan : About two weeks before.

Senator FAULKNER: Did that represent a step back, a diminution in our status?

Mr Sheridan : I do not believe so. Our membership was of the same status that we have had since the London Summit. Nothing had changed.

Senator FAULKNER: What appears to have changed, which I think is accepted, is that Australia was going to join the OGP and now that decision is under review. Is that not a substantive change? It sounds to me to be, but you tell me.

Mr Sheridan : As I understand it, Australia has indicated its intention to join, but has not completed the activities that would enable us to do so. Since we had not competed them the day after we indicated our intention and still have not, I do not think that status has changed.

Senator FAULKNER: Are there any other countries similar to ours that have observer status at the OGP?

Mr Sheridan : There are other countries who attend who have attended the OGP meetings without being members. There are several of those.

Senator FAULKNER: Are you able to say which ones they are?

Mr Sheridan : At the last meeting, there were government representatives from Pakistan and from Papua New Guinea who attended the meeting but were not members at the time.

Senator FAULKNER: Are you able to say how many member states there are currently in the OGP?

Mr Sheridan : I believe it is 64 or 65.

Senator FAULKNER: I might just ask you to take that on notice for a precise figure. I understood it to be around that figure.

Senator Cormann: I think it is on the website, so we might be able to assist.

Senator FAULKNER: So it is 64 or 65. In terms of the lead agency role for Finance, is there an issue with the international aspects of such a role that falls between two stools in that DFAT would ordinarily be handling some of these international negotiations?

Mr Sheridan : Obviously I cannot speak for DFAT, but there are no negotiations involved in meetings of the OGP.

Senator FAULKNER: But it is an international meeting. And there is no DFAT representation there?

Mr Sheridan : At the London summit a DFAT representative from the high commission attended with me.

Senator FAULKNER: Is it true that the only country in the world that has pulled out of the OGP is Russia?

Mr Sheridan : Yes.

Senator FAULKNER: So, there are 64 or 65 countries in it. The only country that has withdrawn is Russia. And the only countries that have observer status are Pakistan, PNG and Australia?

Mr Sheridan : I do not think that is a correct summary—

Senator FAULKNER: I am just going on the evidence that has been given.

Mr Sheridan : Indeed—

Senator Cormann: Perhaps I could just interpose here. Obviously if there are 64 or 65 member countries there are a whole lot of countries that are not connected to it at all. And I just want to make sure that we do not go down the path of this misapprehension that we somehow have made a decision to withdraw. The only thing that happened—and the letter from the then Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus QC, is actually on their website, as it turns out—is that in May 2013 an intention to join was flagged. For whatever reasons, that intention was never consummated, for want of a better word. We think it is quite appropriate as a new government coming in, obviously within all of the priorities that we are dealing with, that we give due consideration to the government's intention in relation to this before proceeding. If you are trying to suggest that somehow we are keeping a particular type of company, I would not want people to go away with that impression.

Senator FAULKNER: Well, no, I do not want us to be in the position of being isolated—and no equivalent nation is isolated—and not be a member of the OGP. I appreciate what you are saying about the status. What I do not understand is why—and Mr Tune might care to comment on this—your own website, the Department of Finance website, gives a declaration of open government and then gives supporting initiatives and says:

The Australian Government’s commitment to action on each of these principles is demonstrated by:

•the passage of legislation reforming the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act and establishing the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner

—which you have knocked over. And then in the next paragraph it says:

Effective collaboration between citizens and government requires timely sharing of the information held by Government. The Government’s FOI Reforms create the new statutory Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and establish a comprehensive Information Publication Scheme that requires agencies to publish a wide range of information.

This seems to be totally out of kilter, out of step, with what current government policy actually is. And this is more a question to Mr Tune, I suppose: does anyone look at any of this material? I do not understand, with these strong statements on your own website—which I printed off just a few minutes ago—in terms of a declaration of open government, this has been wound back a very long way obviously since anyone has bothered to look at the website.

Senator Cormann: Without going into the characterisation of what the government is doing in this budget, for a variety of reasons that we have sought to explain over the past two weeks, if your point is that the Department of Finance website needs to be updated in order to reflect all of the decisions that have been made by the government in the budget, that is a point well made. And I am sure that relevant officials from the department are taking note of that observation. But all we can do, from our point of view, is be as open and candid and transparent as possible around where we are at in terms of our decision making—the reasons for those decisions and how we intend to proceed from here.

Senator FAULKNER: I am not actually making—

CHAIR: Senator Faulkner, I would ask you to conclude your questioning.

Senator FAULKNER: I know; I am going to conclude my questioning in a moment. I am not actually making a political point; I tend not to use estimates to do that. I am asking questions to try to establish the status of Australia's relationship with the Open Government Partnership.

Senator Cormann: And I think we have established that.

Senator FAULKNER: If you asked me, I would say to you that I am very, very disappointed that we are not strongly committed to progressing a very active role in the OGP. I am very, very disappointed with the proposed policy changes in the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and the like. But at the moment I am just trying to establish clarity on some of these issues, given that there seems to be a major inconsistency in what is available in the public record, not just the Open Government Partnership website but also your own website in the Department of Finance. And that is why I am asking. But what I am doing is trying to—

Senator Cormann: And the authoritative guidance for what the government is intending to do from 2014-15 onwards is of course the budget papers. And to the extent that there is an inconsistency between what is in the budget and what is on the departmental website, I would encourage you to use the budget as your authoritative guide. And I am sure that the department will ensure that its website is consistent with what is the government's intention, reflected in the budget, in an appropriately timely fashion.

Senator FAULKNER: Well, I have had a longstanding interest, as I think you and perhaps officials would know about, in Australia's commitment to the OGP and broadly in relation to transparency and accountability measures in government. These sorts of fora are the only fora I have to at least establish what the current status is of Australia's—

Senator Cormann: I do not want to be too political, because I think it has been a good conversation. But I guess from our point of view, given that commitment, it is somewhat surprising that it was only on 22 May 2013—at the tail end of the previous government's period in office—that an intention to join the Open Government Partnership was expressed and never consummated. And of course a new government coming in has to deal with all the priorities that a new government has to deal with, and obviously we are working our way through all of that in an orderly and methodical fashion. But if that commitment by the previous government had been so strong, I am surprised that it was not initiated and consummated and acted upon earlier in the period of government.

Senator FAULKNER: The chair wants me to conclude this, and I will. But let me just say: you can make any point you like about the previous government—fair enough; this is a forum where you can do that. I am not talking about the previous government. My views on this have been expressed publicly and consistently for a very long time and probably have not found a lot of favour with the current government or the previous government.

Senator Cormann: I appreciate that.

Senator FAULKNER: So, whatever the previous government's view is, that is one thing, and we have talked a little bit about the status of the OPG in the previous government. My intention is to try to progress these matters and ask questions as I am asking. And I flagged with you and the department that I will continue to ask questions, and I will now ask some questions on notice, because I am respecting the chair's request to conclude since we are out of time on this matter.

Senator Cormann: And as a closing response, absolutely respecting your genuine interest in these matters, we will continue to try to be as helpful as we possibly can be in candidly presenting the government's intentions and decisions in this area.

Senator FAULKNER: And because we are out of time, I will place some further questions on notice..........

Mr Tune : Before we go there, could I just respond to a couple of points raised by Senator Faulkner that we said we would take on notice around OGP?

Senator FAULKNER: Thank you, Mr Tune.

Mr Tune : What date did we advise OGP that Mr Sheridan would be attending? That was Friday, 11 April. There are 64 participating countries in the OGP, of which 57 have joined and seven are in the process of joining. I think they were the two things that we took on notice.

Senator FAULKNER: So, in that group Australia is separate to that?

Mr Tune : We are one of the seven.

Senator FAULKNER: You said in the process of joining, but Senator Cormann has made clear that Australia does not hold that status.

Mr Tune : I am not sure which one we are.

Senator Cormann: We are cohort 4.

Senator FAULKNER: You are reviewing your position, which is different.

Senator Cormann: Not at all. The position on behalf of the government, as I indicated—and it actually is accurately reflected on the front page of the Open Government Partnership organisation as well which clearly indicates that Australia is part of cohort 4 and, according to them, is expected to join by May 2015—we have not actually made a decision. Their judgment is on the basis of a letter from former Attorney-General Dreyfus on 22 May to indicate the intention expressed by the previous government. As far as we are concerned, we have not formalised that intention into formally joining.

Senator FAULKNER: I get that. All I am asking here is does that make Mr Tune's categorisation—Mr Tune said Australia was one of the seven. It does not appear that we are. It is not a major point but it sounds like an inconsistency to me.

Mr Tune : I will clarify that.

Senator Cormann: The truth is, and this is reflected on the Open Government Partnership's website, the previous government expressed an intention to join. They did not finalise that and proceed to the ultimate joining, and at this stage we are considering how to progress this from here. We have not made a decision not to join but we also have not made a positive decision to join.

Senator FAULKNER: That is right. And the countries Mr Tune described were seven countries including Australia that were intending to join. I am just saying that there is a slight inconsistency. I am understanding what you are saying.

Senator Cormann: My position is the position that reflects the government's current attitude.

Senator FAULKNER: Okay, and therefore, for completeness of the record, I thought I would respond to Mr Tune—

Mr Tune : To clarify, according to Mr Sheridan, we are part of the seven in the process of joining. That might be—

Senator FAULKNER: Well, we are not.

Mr Tune : That is the way it is defined on the website.

Senator FAULKNER: We are not in the process—

Senator Cormann: No, we are not in the process of joining.

Senator FAULKNER: So that information is not right.

Senator Cormann: That is right. The only thing that has been done, which is what this is reflecting, is that—

Senator FAULKNER: You are wrong and he is right.

Mr Tune : Okay, the minister is in charge. I will accept that.

CHAIR: The minister's word is definitive.

Senator FAULKNER: That is a light-hearted comment but you can understand why I just responded to you. I appreciate you bringing that additional information.

Mr Tune : I was reading out what was given to me, so my apologies.

CHAIR: Minister, perhaps, for the record, you can clarify the position and then—

Senator Cormann: Just for the record, to make it very clear—

Senator FAULKNER: I thought it was very dutiful of you to read it.

Senator Cormann: I thought it was very clear. Maybe somebody in the department is still acting on the expressed intention of the previous government, which is obviously not necessarily a wise move. The previous government had expressed an intention to join. We have made very clear that we have not decided yet on whether we will or will not proceed with that intention to join. In the meantime, we are participating in relevant meetings in an observer capacity and that is really the most concise summary of the government's current position that I can possibly provide you with.

Senator FAULKNER: If I had a white flag, Minister, I would wave it.

CHAIR: I am sure someone over there can lend you one.