Pass the hot parcel when questions are raised about 40 years of records in the bin

The testimony in a senate committee hearing on the Sports Rorts affair that retiring Secretary of the Department of Health Glenys Beauchamp had destroyed all of the notes and notebooks from her public service career at the end of January led to further inquiry in Senate estimates last week. The hot potato of course was the notes if any that had been kept then destroyed about meetings concerning the tortuous decision making on community sports grants.

Senate Estimates on this bore passing resemblance to pass the parcel but there was no prize for anyone when the music stopped-for the moment at least.

In short:

Australian Public Service Commissioner Peter Woolcott said he hadn't carried out an investigation into the matter as requested by Senator Gallagher because he didn't have authority and the Attorney General's Department not the Commission was the agency responsible for the Archives Act. Senator Gallagher noted the APSC website had a lot of information about record keeping. Woolcott said this was all to do with the broader issue of integrity and the APS Code of Conduct but "I have no room to investigate Ms Beauchamp at this point." 

The Attorney General's Department couldn't say one way or the other whether destruction of the notes and notebooks could give rise to an offence under the Archives Act, noting that destruction of records in accordance with "a normal administrative practice" was exempt from the offence provision, and flagged that the Archives office was to be heard later in the day.

 When the Archives office, no doubt the best placed to throw light on it all, finally got the call at 10.45 pm, none of the senators who pursued the issue earlier in the day asked a question about it in the 15 minutes devoted to Archives. Archives will no doubt get a chance through questions on notice to express a view in light of  published guidance on the matter but now Ms Beauchamp has left the service and the records no longer exist it seems unlikely to go any further.

What message this conveys to public servants about record keeping generally is another matter, just as Mr Woolcott prepares for a service wide training initiative on integrity. Quite a challenge but a ready made case study perhaps?

 Senator Gallagher the opposition shadow public service minister has written to the Attorney General asking him to investigate the destroyed notes.
“It seems all very convenient that no official records are available from a key meeting of senior officials – urgently convened to discuss the management of political interference in the allocation of sports grants and that of the three officials present at that meeting only former CEO of Sport Australia, Ms Palmer, can recall it,” Gallagher said.“I have referred the matter of the destruction of records to the attorney general following the advice of the Public Service Commissioner. As a commonwealth public servant the making and keeping of records is not a discretionary act.”

The long version of what transpired in Estimates is in these extracts from the Hansard transcripts:

People are talking about integrity; governments should be listening and acting

The Transparency International Australia National Integrity 2017 conference in Brisbane last week brought together 160 government, business and civil society delegates from all corners of Australia, including senior legal figures, heads of integrity agencies, federal, state and local parliamentarians, community groups, corporate leaders and individual TI Australia members.

Lots of energy at the conference and a perceptible whiff that positive change is in the air with more voices calling for improvements in integrity in the public and corporate sectors.

The release of a major paper canvassing key issues for the design of a federal anti-corruption commission was one of many highlights.

Here's me giving a rundown on lessons learned from Australia's experience in developing the national action plan required as a result of the commitment by PM Turnbull in December 2015 to join the Open Government Partnership. Someone told me the only thing missing from the timeline diagram are the snakes and ladders.

And in a panel discussion with Queensland Attorney General Yvette D'ath and James Ensor BHP Billiton.
 
Hat tip to Queensland for leading the nation on real-time disclosure of political donations, which follows publication of minister appointment diaries, and reporting and publication on lobbying contacts. 
(They should do better with reporting on parliamentarians use of entitlements.)

Hat tip to BHP Billiton- no to political party donations, yes to publicly available information on beneficial ownership of corporate entities, action in reporting on payments to government....
(They and the business community generally are rarely heard on the topic of good government and could and should speak up.)

Has the PM answered the call: An integrity agenda for 2017?

The Prime Minister in conjunction with the resignation of Health minister Sussan Ley has announced a commitment to further changes to the parliamentary entitlements system.

The changes go beyond the recommendations in the Conde report already accepted in principle and according to an earlier announcement to be acted upon in the first half of 2017.

The PM:

"Australians are entitled to expect that politicians spend taxpayers' money carefully, ensuring at all times that their work expenditure represents an efficient, effective and ethical use of public resources," he said. "We should be, as politicians, backbenchers and ministers, we should be as careful and as accountable with taxpayers' money as we possibly can be." Mr Turnbull also announced that a new body overseeing parliamentary expenses would be created.
"The Government believes that the work expenses of parliamentarians, including ministers, should be administered and overseen by an independent agency," he said.
"An independent parliamentary expenses authority will be a compliance, reporting and transparency body. It will monitor and adjudicate all claims by MPs, senators and ministers, ensuring that taxpayers' funds are spent appropriately and in compliance with the rules."
Describing transparency as key, Mr Turnbull said the new system would allow the public to view expenses in "as close to real time" as possible. "The system that manages entitlements will be modernised to allow monthly disclosure of parliamentarians' expenses in an accessible — that is to say, searchable — format," he said."[Currently] Most of the forms are filled in by the politicians by hand. It is all paper-based. The reports that you do find on the Department of Finance website are big PDF files. They are, you know, months out-of-date when they are posted."

Welcome news.

As per usual the devil is in the detail, yet to come.

A few thoughts:

• Apart from Conde there are recommendations not acted upon in a number of auditor general reports stretching back to 2001-2002 and from the Belcher committee report in 2010. Hopefully they haven't been lost in time.

• No mention so far of a Code of Conduct for Parliamentarians. Maybe the legislation the PM has in mind will go further than a code when it comes to responsibilities. Great. However the Coalition in 2010 wouldn't have a bar of it when John Faulkner tried to persuade Parliament to introduce a code.

• "Parliamentarians entitlements"paid by Finance are only part of the picture. Some payments are made to or on behalf of members and senators by the Parliamentary departments, including support for and the cost of hospitality incurred by the Presiding officers. These payments currently are not  published. Parliament in 2013 excluded the parliamentary departments from the Freedom of Information Act.

• Each department pays for the costs involved in supporting its minister, including official hospitality and who knows what else. These expenditures currently are not published.

• The PM is right to state parliamentarians must be "as accountable with taxpayers' money as we possibly can be."Transparency and accountability should also extend to searchable information about declarations of interest (PM- they're in PDF files), contact with lobbyists ( PM-not published), and political donations (PM-can be published up to 18 months after the event.)

• A parliamentary expenses authority should help keep things within reasonable limits. However a government serious about integrity would accept that a Federal anti-corruption body is also much needed.

As Peter Hartcher in making similar points in Fairfax Media recently said

"The cause of cleaning up Canberra is an inevitable one. The only question is who will best do it, and whether the energy will be channelled constructively to fix our democracy or destructively to make it weaker."

Trust and confidence 

Before the 2016 election campaign got underway the Roy Morgan Annual Survey revealed Federal Politicians are rated highly on Ethics and Honesty by 17% (up 4% in a year), putting them 23 of 30 professions included in the survey.

As scored on ABC Vote Watch the Prime Minister finished the election campaign in July with a personal trust rating of 4.5 out of 10, Bill Shorten 3.7 and Greens leader Di Natale 3.9.

According to the ANU Post Election 2016 Survey 74% agree "People in government look after themselves." Only 26% say "People in government can be trusted."

The PM knows all this. As he said in July last year:

"There is no doubt that there is a level of disillusionment with politics, with government, and with the major parties. Our own included. We note that. We respect it," Turnbull said. Now, we need to listen very carefully to the concerns of the Australian people expressed through this election. We need to look at how we will address those concerns that's what the Deputy Prime Minister and I have been discussing today. There are lessons to be learned from this election."

On the other hand we've heard good intentions before.

Tony Abbott before the 2013 election as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald:

Abbott's first priority if he wins the election will be to seek to rebuild Australians' confidence in government and restore civility to the national political discourse after three bruising years of minority government.
''The greatest deficit in our country at the moment is the trust deficit. Sure we have got a very serious budget deficit, but the trust deficit is even more serious. I would hope that, should we win the election, I would be able to so conduct myself and my team would be able to so conduct themselves that by the end of the first term people would have once more concluded that Australian government was competent and trustworthy …

 We live in hope for 2017.

Senate Committee on National integrity Commission, Government senators not interested in this or political donation reform

 It's not simply that when Quentin Dempster speaks, things happen.

After all The Greens have been on about the need for a Federal anti-corruption commission for years, so too a whole raft of organisations and individuals who don't buy the idea that the government and all its constituent parts and players are unique in the long history of humankind.

So while the commission or some other much needed response that tightens things up at the federal level may still be far off in the distance, yesterday some stirring.

On the motion of Senators Wang and Madison the Senate took two minutes to vote to establish "the Select Committee relating to the establishment of a National Integrity Commission" to report to the Senate by September 2016 with these terms of reference. 

Labor, The Greens and cross bench senators voted for. 

None spoke, if you discount a minor intervention by Greens Senator Siewert. 

But the vote is a welcome confirmation of Labor's current interest, having passed up on the opportunity to act when they were in office and darting and weaving on the subject since.

Government party senators voted against. One, Senator Scott Ryan, Minister for Vocational Skills and Training had one minute for the stock standard government line:

The government has a zero tolerance approach to corruption and is committed to stamping out corruption in all its forms. We have a multifaceted approach to combating corruption. We are always looking at how we can strengthen that, rather than throwing the whole system out based on the presumption that a national anticorruption commission will be more effective. The Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity is responsible for preventing, detecting and investigating serious issues of corruption in federal law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, the Commonwealth Ombudsman performs an important function in investigating and auditing various agencies and functions. The Australian Federal Police also play a fundamental role in investigating serious corruption issues. The government will continue to take a strong approach to tackling corruption in all forms.

DIVISION:AYES 37 (10 majority) NOES 27 PAIRS 6
AYES	NOES	PAIRS
Brown, CL Bullock, JW Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Conroy, SM Dastyari, S Day, RJ Di Natale, R Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Hanson-Young, SC Ketter, CR Lambie, J Lazarus, GP Leyonhjelm, DE Lines, S Ludlam, S Ludwig, JW Madigan, JJ Marshall, GM McAllister, J McEwen, A (teller) McKim, NJ McLucas, J Moore, CM Muir, R O'Neill, DM Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Simms, RA Singh, LM Sterle, G Wang, Z Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS Xenophon, N	Abetz, E Back, CJ Bernardi, C Bushby, DC (teller) Canavan, MJ Cormann, M Edwards, S Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Heffernan, W Johnston, D Lindgren, JM Macdonald, ID McGrath, J McKenzie, B Nash, F O'Sullivan, B Parry, S Payne, MA Reynolds, L Ronaldson, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Seselja, Z Smith, D Williams, JR	Bilyk, CL Scullion, NG Collins, JMA Birmingham, SJ Peris, N Brandis, GH Polley, H Cash, MC Urquhart, AE Sinodinos, A Wong, P Colbeck,

 Earlier in the day more voices were heard in debate on a Greens urgency motion:

"The need for immediate action on political donations reform, to address the corrupting influence of political donations, including from property developers and fossil fuel companies."

Debate here and there strayed into broader anti-corruption issues and took an hour.

The motion passed without a vote so Senator Seiwert may get a spot higher on the agenda sometime for the substantive issue.

No surprise that Greens senators and crossbenchers Leyonhjelm, Madigan and Lambie are up for action on this front. Senator Rhiannon outlined how the system is broke but Government senators clearly think things are pretty rosy. 

Labor is committed to significant change but some of its speakers seemed glad to change the subject.

Senator Lambie told the Senate of a close encounter with the PM, looking deeply in his eyes, listening to his low deep voice saying.... 

'there's no corruption in federal politics.'

"I recently met the Prime Minister and when I raised the issue of establishing a federal commission against corruption, a federal ICAC, he dismissed the idea by trying to tell me that a federal ICAC was not warranted because there were not many opportunities in federal politics, compared with state politics, for corruption to occur. I almost believed that nice story from our PM—and I mean who wouldn't? As I looked deeply in the PM's eyes, he said with that low deep voice with that nice smile repeat after me : 'There's no corruption in federal politics—only in state politics. There's no corruption in federal politics—only in state politics. I was left with that fuzzywuzzy feeling of hope for a few days after my meeting with the PM that 'there's no corruption in federal politics— only in state politics.'

And then—what do you know?—Veterans Affairs Minister Stuart Roberts was forced to resign; we found out about the rich Chinese businessman having drinks with Liberal Party members and the $10,000 watches that were given out as gifts.

The same sort of thing happened after I wrote to former Liberal PM Abbott asking him effectively whether any people associated with the Liberal Party and mentioned in the Heydon Royal Commission secret reports were corrupt. And PM Tony Abbott wrote back to me, essentially saying that no-one in the Liberal Party was corrupt; and then seven days later we found out the Liberal Party President in Victoria had defrauded their members to the tune of about $1.5 million.

Last year's Roy Morgan Survey of Professions saw 13% rate Federal politicians highly on ethics and honesty.

Good governments recognise integrity and accountability are part of the package

Evidence that those who win public office have sniffed the breeze: the new governments in Victoria and Queensland have each appointed a special minister of state responsible for integrity and accountability issues. 

Hopefully a pointer for those running for office next in NSW on 28 March.

And for a federal government now almost half way through its term whose leader declared a week ago "good government starts today." 

The government has virtually nothing positive to show on the integrity and accountability front after 17 months. 

And its bill to abolish the independent statutory office established to oversight the public right to access government information remains on the bills list while the office operates with "reduced resources in anticipation of closure."

In a poll four months ago 46.5 per cent believed the Federal government to be untrustworthy, a lower level of trust than enjoyed by state and local counterparts.

 It's likely to have gone to new depths since.

Good government includes recognition that integrity and accountability are part of the package.

Followed by action to match on political donations and lobbying reform; transparency, supporting open government instead of closing down the information commissioner; an anti corruption plan to include an anti corruption body; upgrading whistleblower protection to best practice standard; a code of ethics for parliamentarians; and signing on to the Open Government Partnership.

All the while going beyond the public servants in the parliamentary triangle to engage with the broader community on these and related issues.

For the pollies who listen, time for the Minister for Integrity.

The whiff of interest in such things is getting stronger. Except on the Federal scene where we have a trust deficit disaster.

Victoria put integrity up in lights with the appointment of a Special Minister of State responsible for a wide range of integrity measures. Gavin Jennings ranks third in the ministerial line up, not as an add on at the bottom of the list.

Integrity and accountability are certain to feature in the forthcoming NSW campaign with the major parties both desperate to ditch the baggage opened up by the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

Labor made much of these issues in the incredible Queensland campaign. 

Commitments to improve integrity measures there proved crucial in winning Independent Peter Wellington's support for a Palaszczuk government, announced today.

In an exchange of letters the leader of the opposition, within two seats of a majority, reaffirmed the commitment to the Fitzgerald Principles; undertook to reintroduce a $1000 disclosure threshold for political donations and to work with the Electoral Commission to develop a real time online disclosure of donations; ensure the anti corruption watchdog, to be headed by a new independent chair, holds a public inquiry into the links if any between donations to political parties and the awarding of tenders, contracts and approvals; will make all public service appointments on merit; and explore a possible Bill of Rights In Queensland.

But not a word about such things so far in Prime Minister Abbott's look into the future with the emphasis on a 'safe and secure Australia', strong economy, jobs, families, and budget repair (without pain). 

This despite the pre election acknowledgement by Mr Abbott that the trust deficit was bigger than the budget deficit, and that commentators including Lenore Taylor now call it a trust deficit disaster.

The Abbott government should sniff the breeze: political donations, lobbying, transparency, supporting open government instead of closing down the information commissioner, an anti corruption plan to include an anti corruption body, upgrading whistleblower protection to best practice standard, a code of ethics for parliamentarians, signing on to the Open Government Partnership, engaging with the broader community on these and related issues. 

Best led and sheperded by a minister for integrity in name or in practice.

Federal Labor, about to see Senator for Integrity John Faulkner walk out the door any day now, shouldn't wait a moment to follow the Victorian brothers and sisters by tagging a top performer on the opposition front bench with these responsibilities. 

G20 countries to lead on international best practices for public sector transparency and integrity

From the 2015-16 G20 Anti Corruption Plan (pdf), an "agreed document" that supports the Communique issued at conclusion of the Leaders' Summit in Brisbane yesterday, this from the section Public sector transparency and integrity:

"G20 countries commit to leading by example in ensuring our government agencies, policies, and officials implement international best practices for public sector transparency and integrity.  The (Anti Corruption Working Group) has identified public procurement, open data, whistleblower protections, immunities for public officials, fiscal and budget transparency, and standards for public officials as issues which merit particular attention."

We look forward to engaging with the Government on this challenge. For starters, abolishing the Office of Australian Information Commissioner and its important function as independent monitor, advocate and 'champion' of open government, as proposed in government legislation currently before the Senate, is not international best practice.

Timely also that Tim Smith QC from the Accountability Roundtable is in The Zone
at Fairfax Media today explaining

those in public office hold positions of public trust and should therefore place the public interest above all other considerations. From this flow such tenets of democracy and public policy as accountability and transparency. And under our legal system, the principle has expanded beyond the realm of ethics to guide and become enshrined in judge-made law, the common law.

 Tim is answering questions here .

Trust drops to the cellar while a smorgasbord of integrity issues struggle for attention

Lukas Plewnia

Read Peter Hartcher in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday "A glaring omission in our political life" and weep: despite everything we are seeing unfold in NSW, the Abbott government, well as of last Friday, is not interested in a federal body along the lines of the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption. 

The Opposition weren't much interested either when they committed to establishing a Parliamentary Integrity Commissioner in 2010 then let slide a bill introduced by The Greens Adam Bandt in May 2012 to create the National Office of Integrity Commissioner.

On that front at least change is in the air. Hartcher quotes ALP Senator John Faulkner as saying the Parliament 

"needs to ensure the events in NSW cannot be repeated in Canberra or anywhere else in Australia. In my view, the sorts of issues being raised at the NSW ICAC do not miraculously stop at state or territory borders." "This will be a real challenge for our current political leaders," Faulkner observed.

 Indeed.

The government, with control of the lower house can determine at the end of the day what goes and what doesn't but debate in the Senate might at least cause reflection on its  defence of the status quo, in essence 'we've got everything covered, believe us."

In debate in May on The Greens renewed effort to push the National Integrity Commission bill, government speakers rubbished the idea. National Party Senator O'Sullivan said the government is proud of Australia's position and reputation

"as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. This is a recognition of the net measure of respective coalition governments in this place and in states right across this country. As a political movement, we have a sub-zero tolerance to corruption." .

As Hartcher notes, Federal parliamentarians don't have a code of conduct. Conflicts of interest of the kind on display in the Palmer party go through to the keeper. 
In October 2012 Steve Ciobo then in opposition and now Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer said a code of conduct 

"is nothing more than a feel-good exercise that will deliver no net tangible benefit whatsoever."

It's not just the absence of an integrity commission and a code of conduct for parliamentarians. 

Just before the 2013 election the Federal Parliament voted to exclude from the Freedom of Information Act the parliamentary departments that spend large amounts on helping them do their job. Silence since.

Last year the government response to latest round of improper or dodgy use of travel entitlements by Federal parliamentarians hardly moved beyond 'Oh dear.' Recommendations years ago by the Belcher committee continue to gather dust. One, precluding use of printing allowance during an election campaign, might put an end to the double dipping identified by Nick Evershed at Guardian Australia recently. 

Political donation and lobbying laws are weak, and reform efforts in recent years amounted to little. While some third party lobbyists who lobby ministers and public servants are subject to a registration requirement that doesn't amount to much, lobbying federal parliamentarians including the Palmer party that can make or break a piece of legislation for the government is a regulation free zone.


Then there's silence on a National Anti Corruption Plan despite obligations under the UN Convention Against Corruption ratified by Australia on 7 December 2005.

And silence too on the Australian Law Reform Commission recommendation five years ago that the exemption for political parties from the Privacy Act should be removed. To quote the report:

"In the interests of promoting public confidence in the political process, those who exercise or seek power in government should adhere to the principles and practices that are required of the wider community.." 

Whistleblower protection?  
While we have passable to good law to protect public sector employees ( overall rated middle of the pack among G 20 members) the major parties last year opposed changes that would provide protection for public officials who report wrongdoing by....
you guessed it, members of parliament.

Time to stand for integrity

With trust in government down, down down and support for democracy itself in decline, how federal politicians might dance around integrity related topics in coming months will surely be a sight to see. It is not just that we don't have a national integrity commission. Political donation and lobbying laws and rules are inadequate as well. In May when The Greens bill to establish an integrity commission came on for brief debate, government speakers weren't having a bar of it. As Bob Bottom recounted two years ago in The Australian it's been talked about for 30 years. The time has surely come. The holes in our integrity system are a national scandal.

Trust in politicians Episode XXX: "Democracy for Sale"

On ABC Four Corners last night Linton Besser illustrated how a deal to win partial control of a major public utility opened the door on a web of alleged corruption, impacting both State and Federal politics and players on both sides of the political divide, and how the rules that are supposed to regulate political donations can be ignored or corrupted right across Australia. 

It's not just that the Federal and state rules relating to political donations are weak, and as shown, ineffectual. So too those that relate to lobbyists. NSW rules on that front may be ahead of other jurisdictions but recommendations from the ICAC in 2011 still await a response

And as the program points out while we have anti-corruption bodies in the states there is no Federal commission to fight corruption. 

The Greens introduced the National Integrity Commission Bill into Parliament last year. When it came up for debate in May Liberal and National party senators who spoke dismissed the idea out of hand. As Senator O'Sullivan put it:

This government is proud of Australia's position and reputation. Australia is consistently ranked by Transparency International as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. This is a recognition of the net measure of respective coalition governments in this place and in states right across this country. As a political movement, we have a sub-zero tolerance to corruption.

Watch or read the Four Corners transcript. A couple of extracts follow including Senator John Faulkner's call for a lower threshold for reporting political donations and close to real time disclosure, and adding his voice at least to the national integrity commission cause.

The Trust Thing

A month before the furore over the Budget and broken promises,12% of Australians rated Federal (and state) parliamentarians highly for ethics and honesty, according to the most recent annual Roy Morgan poll of attitudes towards 30 professions. Nurses (91%), doctors and pharmacists (86%) were way out in the lead.

The pollies were down two (state parliamentarians three) points in a year, and a whopping 11 points since 2008, only matched by Ministers of Religion who dropped 13% in the same period.The ministers' current 37% score however is three times that of the politicians who tied with union leaders and in a field of 30 came in ahead of just three, real estate, advertising and car sales types.

With confidence in politicians to do what is right at such a low level, you would have to think someone in government is thinking about how to reverse the trend. It's not evident anywhere I look. 

Tony Abbott seemed onto this, citing the trust deficit as the biggest of those facing government from the time the election was called in August 2013. But it hasn't proved his strong suit then or since.

The Coalition for example had nothing to say during the campaign about how it planned to restore trust other than the mantra 'stop the boats' etc. The Budget, and denial that any promises have been broken will relegate the 'say what we do, do what we say' part of this to a storage box in the attic

Within a month of being elected, in response to the first integrity blow up, the government initially ignored abuse of entitlements by parliamentarians that came to light then spoke of changes at the margins rather than taking this head on and acting to ensure full transparency and accountability.

Our leader(s) in eight months haven't spoken up about the importance of open transparent and accountable government, leaving Immigration Minister Morrison unchallenged to set secrecy as the prevailing 'tone at the top.'

Agencies seemed to get (in some cases welcome) the message, almost uniformly refusing FOI access to incoming government briefs, a monumental turn around from three years ago. Some, well experienced in gaming the system, have taken this to new levels.
(Addendum: during Labor's last gasp, they and the Coalition rushed through legislation to exempt the parliamentary departments from FOI.)

Against this backdrop (and no response to the Hawke review which said someone should do the job thoroughly, he couldn't and didn't) the FOI framework is set to return to darker days that predate the 2009 reforms with the Budget announcement of the abolition of the Office of Australian Information Commissioner. FOI seems headed back to 'orphan' territory with no high level advocate or sponsor to proclaim, safeguard and nurture its essential elements. Reviews are headed back to the AAT at $816 flagfall plus plenty for help to match the legal resources available to the agency.

As to the goverrnment's intentions about proceeding with its predecessor's application to join 63 other countries in the Open Government Partnership all we hear is the matter is 'under consideration.' After eight months this reminds of Yes Minister where the phrase meant 'we have lost the file.' 'Under active consideration' at least meant 'we are trying to find it.' 

We didn't manage to send a minister to an OGP conference in London last year, and told Indonesian President SBY none could be spared to take up his invitation to Bali earlier this month..

We claim "Global leadership in combating corruption" but having ratified the United Nations Convention Against Corruption in 2005, we are yet to complete the required National Anti Corruption Plan.(The link to the Plan at the bottom of the page on the AGD website leads to "Not Found", no irony intended I'm sure.)

We have heard nothing about political donations and lobbying reforms despite regulations that are inadequate and pathetic disclosure requirements and the fact that the Federal Liberal Party is feeling the heat from the NSW ICAC hearings.

The Greens introduced the National Integrity Commission Bill in the Senate last Thursday. The Bill

"establishes a National Integrity Commission as an independent statutory agency which will consist of the National Integrity Commissioner, the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner and the Independent Parliamentary Advisor and provide for: the investigation and prevention of misconduct and corruption in all Commonwealth departments, agencies, and federal parliamentarians and their staff; the investigation and prevention of corruption in the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission; and independent advice to ministers and parliamentarians on conduct, ethics and matters of proprietary. Also: provides for the establishment of a Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Integrity Commission.." 

Three Coalition speakers spoke in the adjourned debate and generally poured a bucket on Labor and The Greens, but did not indicate government support. Labor (see John Faulkner's speech) is generally supportive although yet to decide.

Related issues such as a code of conduct for parliamentarians don't rate a mention anywhere.

Last week, both major parties passed legislation that confirm that refugees subjected to an adverse security assessment by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, have no right to know the reasons, can be detained indefinitely and can't challenge the merits of the decision.

Let me know what I've left out.

That 12% in April may prove to be a high point. 

Accountability Roundtable Integrity Awards

Mark Dreyfus QC carried off the Button and Melissa Parke and Judith Moylan jointly the Missen - more from AAP.  

The late Alan Missen by the way not only crossed the floor 41 times as noted in the report but was a loud and persistent voice for a freedom of information act among many other causes. As chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs he played a key role in the shape of legislation as passed in 1981 and kept a close eye on it until his death in 1986.

Who's up for Integrity awards?

The Accountability Roundtable Parliamentary Awards for the 43rd parliament, that is the pre September election parliament, will be announced tomorrow at an event  at 5.30 in Committee Room 2S3, Parliament House, Canberra.  

The Button and Missen awards are respectively to the minister and backbencher who "have demonstrated an outstanding commitment to the public interest in the performance of his or her role with
 Honesty
 Civility
 Independence 
and/or
 Political Courage, in one or more of the following areas

• Supporting the principles and practice of transparent and accountable government
• Contributing effectively and constructively to parliamentary debate, committee deliberations and/or policy development in a way that promotes and/or supports good parliamentary practice and the institution of parliament.
• Pursuing a change in government policy or practice whether generally or in response to a constituency issue or injustice.
• Protecting peoples’ political and civil rights."

Then Defence Minister Senator John Faulkner and then backbencher Petro Georgiou were award recipients in 2010. 

Picking winners in this sort of contest is of course a no win game.

But Senator Faulkner would have to be in with a strong chance for the Missen to match his Button, along with Senators Xenophon, Ludlam, Rhiannon and from the House, Andrew Wilkie, Tony Windsor, Melissa Parke and Judith Moylan.  

Then Attorney General  Dreyfus may grab the Button for meritoriously rescuing whistleblower protection legislation from the too hard box.


If you are interested in attending the event email joannamesiti@tpg.com.au with name and contact details.

Attorney General debate leaves integrity on the sidelines, prompts The Oz to pursue privacy 'zealots.'

The notes prepared by Anne Wardell Deputy Editor-In-Chief for Law and Business at CCH seem to be the most comprehensive record available of the debate last week between Attorney General Dreyfus and Shadow, Senator Brandis. No mention, according to this summary, of the transparency/accountability/integrity/open government issues of primary interest here.

The Attorney General listed privacy as one of the next term priorities and separately elaborated in an interview with Chris Merritt in The Australian- Privacy law 'no attack on media'. The bill to require mandatory serious breach notification that failed to get up in the last parliament will be reintroduced if the ALP wins - Merritt queries the cost to business. (As to Opposition policy, who knows?)

And as the headline suggests, Merritt gives prominence to the privacy cause of action issue, managing to extract acknowledgement of uncertainty about what might result from the Attorney's reference to the Australian Law Reform Commission:

 Despite the fact that the ALRC had been asked to design a privacy tort, Mr Dreyfus said it was possible the commission could recommend that such a tort was not needed. "They might," he said. The inquiry's terms of reference did not amount to a commitment to the creation of a privacy tort. "But they do ask for a detailed design of what a statutory cause of action for serious invasions of privacy might look like, for good reason."You cannot have a proper discussion about this until you have got down the detail."

In a related opinion piece Mark Dreyfus not afraid to stand up for free speech Merritt suggests the Attorney shouldn't be held responsible for "Labor's disgraceful record on freedom of speech" because he was new to the job and

"used his first interview as Attorney-General to express personal concern about the risk to freedom of speech from legislation that encourages people to sue each other over invasions of privacy. Until those remarks appeared on the front page of this newspaper, nobody in the Gillard government had expressed the slightest disquiet in public about the deeply flawed plan for a privacy tort that was then in development. It was a plan that seemed designed to remedy a mischief on the other side of the planet."

Of course, there are many who see growing mischief in interferences with privacy in all sorts of local nooks and crannies. However Merritt thinks these 'zealots' may have had their day:

In 2009, when the commission last recommended in favour of a privacy tort, much of the debate had been captured by zealots who seemed to have no understanding of the fundamental rule that privacy - like all other human rights - is not absolute. It needs to be balanced in a way that addresses the intended mischief without inflicting unnecessary damage to other rights such as freedom of speech.

I can't recall anyone who argues the right to privacy is absolute. But it is a universally recognised right.

Three law reform commissions, and most others who have looked conclude there is a gap in the law. Many think it would be best filled by a carefully crafted statutory cause of action that does exactly what Merritt suggests, balancing privacy and other rights.

The only absolutists in this are those who advocate such an exalted position for freedom of speech/freedom of the press. Some reminders from testimony to the Committee examining the Government's media reform legislation in March:

It's all about trust..

The Prime Minister in announcing the election and Mr Abbott speaking more expansively on a number of occasions including at the campaign launch yesterday, are both talking 'trust'.

The Leader of the Opposition puts it at the top of the list: the trust deficit is even more serious than the budget deficit.

The Fairfax Poll published on Saturday had Mr Abbott as the more trusted leader, with a rating of 43 per cent to Mr Rudd's career-low 36 per cent. 

But in May Federal members of parliament were 25 in the list of 30 professions rated for ethics and honesty in the Roy Morgan Survey (pdf). That 14% score was a 4 point improvement! 

Mr Abbott offered 'say what you mean and do what you say' as his shorthand solution to the problem. 

Sounds like a welcome commitment to honest, open communication. But a long way short of a plan to restore and maintain trust. 

More will be needed from whoever wins for example improvements on the open, transparent, accountable government front, a code of conduct for parliamentarians, an integrity commissioner and other anti-corruption measures, lobbying and political donation reform, and addressing shortcomings in whistleblower protections. For a start get rid of that blanket FOI exclusion for the parliamentary departments that both sides of politics rushed through a few months ago. (As an aside remember 'I'll end secrecy in 2007? There is a long list of that sort that might have something to do with the trust deficit.)

The Accountability Roundtable and Transparency International Australia have separately called on the main parties to outline their plans on a range of these issues. No published responses to date.

Throughout the two years saga of will we or won't we join the Open Government Partnership, I'm not aware the Opposition said anything on the subject. I've written to Shadow Attorney General Brandis and Shadow Foreign Minister Bishop (and to my local member Malcolm Turnbull) inquiring where they stand, but no response there either.

The Liberal Party's Plan for Real Action in the chapter 'Delivering strong, stable and accountable government' contains, well, no plan for real action:

The Coalition will do the right thing for Australia and deliver a strong, stable, accountable government that puts the national interest first and delivers a better future for all Australians. We will restore accountability and improve transparency measures to be more accountable to you. We will govern for all Australians, not favour any particular group. We’re all in this together and we’ll encourage all Australians to work together. We will end the class war and the bad blood between Labor and business that is damaging investment and employment.

As usual we live in hope. 

Trust in government-that's another matter.