Entitlements rebranded Work Expenses and more transparency, maybe

I haven't been through the report of the review An Independent Parliamentary Entitlements System but these seem to be the recommendations relevant to transparency and accountability.

This is territory traversed in the past to some degree by the Auditor General and the Belcher committee. In those instances quite a few recommendations were ignored or conveniently disappeared through the cracks, but we live in hope.... 
(Update: From Minister Cormann's Media Release:

The Government supports all the recommendations in principle and will now commence work on implementation. Implementation of a number of recommendations will involve further work by the Remuneration Tribunal, which the Government will ask the Tribunal to commence forthwith.

Recommendation 24
 Improving transparency – publish all key documents online
The Government should ensure that all rules and practices relating to interpretation and operation of the work expenses framework are published together online, along with
guidance material.
 
Recommendation 25
Improving transparency – more frequent reporting
The Government should publish:
a.details of work expenses of parliamentarians and their staff ; and
b.a parliamentary expenses dataset on data.gov.au.
The Government should do so quarterly, pending implementation by the Department of Finance of an integrated digital system proposed in recommendation 30, and from then on monthly.

Recommendation 26
Improving transparency – more detailed travel reporting
The Government should:
a.require parliamentarians to identify in their claims for flights (including air charter) and travelling allowance that the purpose of travel falls within at least one of the work streams covered by the inclusive definition of ‘parliamentary business’ recommended in chapter 4; and
b.ensure this identification is included in published expenditure reports
 
Recommendation 28
Improving transparency – office costs
The Government should:
a.amend the reporting regime so that required expenditure on the establishment, relocation and refurbishment of off ices appears as Commonwealth expenditure administered by the Department of Finance, not in the expenditure reports of individual parliamentarians; and

b.initiate a motion to refer the issue of the high cost of outfitting electorate off ices under existing arrangements to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit for examination and possible inclusion in the Parliament’s audit priorities advised to the Auditor-General.

Recommendation 30
Information technology – integrated digital system
The Department of Finance should urgently develop for Government consideration a business case for a fit-for-purpose, integrated online work expenses system.
 
Recommendation 32
Oversight and accountability – certification
The Government and the Department of Finance should undertake the following improvements to certification arrangements:
a. the Government should introduce legislation creating a requirement that parliamentarians certify that their o icial expenditure accords with the eligibility
rules;
b. the Government should introduce legislation creating a requirement that parliamentarians certify the purpose of travel provided pursuant to recommendation 26;
c. the Department of Finance should publish certification reports quarterly pending implementation of the integrated digital information technology system proposed in recommendation 30, and then monthly;
d. the Department of Finance should include in its certification reports any reasons provided by parliamentarians for not complying with certification requests, instances of failure to provide reasons, and details of any qualified certifications;
and
e. the Department of Finance should apply the improved information technology arrangements in recommendations 30 and 31 to its administration and reporting of certifications.
 
Recommendation 33
Oversight and accountability – assurance and audit
The Department of Finance should ensure that appropriate resources are allocated to
conducting contemporary assurance and audit activities related to parliamentary work
expenses claims, and taking action on the findings of these activities.

Recommendation 34
Oversight and accountability – the Protocol
The Government should:
a. amend the Protocol followed when an Allegation is Received of Alleged Misuse of Entitlement by a Member or Senator (the Protocol) to:
i. reflect current practices in relation to allegations of misuse;
ii. incorporate the arrangements announced on 9 November 2013 for the Special Minister of State to table in Parliament the names of parliamentarians who do not comply with requests to provide information;
iii. replace the term ‘entitlement’ consistent with recommendation 2; and
iv. expand the membership of the high-level committee responsible for considering ‘more serious’ matters to include two independent members, one of whom should be a retired judicial o ff icer of an Australian Court (Federal, State or Territory); and
b. table the amended Protocol in Parliament.

Recommendation 35
Oversight and accountability – penalty loadings
The Government should move amendments to the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 to apply a penalty loading of 25 per cent to adjustment of parliamentarians’ claims for all work expenses (other than those made following Department of Finance error), not just those relating to travel.

Deja vu: Government announces comprehensive review of parliamentary entitlements

Six years ago the then government announced a 'root and branch review' of parliamentary entitlements following critical findings by the Auditor General

The committee chaired by Barbara Belcher reported in April 2010. The government sat on the report for a year before releasing it.

As recounted here the Auditor General six weeks ago reported something had been done on 17 of the committee's 39 recommendations. But

"there has been no formal government response to the recommendations of the CROPE (Belcher) report, or subsequent Remuneration Tribunal report, in relation to fundamental reform of the legislative and administrative framework underpinning the provision of Parliamentarians’ ‘tools of trade’." 

Today the Prime Minister announced

The rules governing the parliamentary entitlements system need reform....The rules lack clarity and lack transparency. We need a system that is simple, effective and clear. We need a system that more independently sets and monitors parliamentary entitlements, working with the Department of Finance and the independent Remuneration Tribunal. We need a system that enables parliamentarians, their staff, and the public, to operate inside the rules with confidence and for those rules to meet the expectations of the community. We need a system that supports the work and activities of current day politicians, from diverse electorates, and helps them to serve their constituencies, parties and the Parliament. The Government has asked former Secretary of the Department of Finance, Mr David Tune AO PSM, and Chair of the Remuneration Tribunal, Mr John Conde AO, to co-chair a committee to examine how best to deliver a more independent system.This committee starts with a blank sheet of paper to provide options on a system that is truly independent.

I'm sure they're serious this time. 

 

Parliamentarians entitlements-calls for "root and branch review" take us back to the future

Lots of talk about a"root and branch" review of parliamentarians' entitlements, including on Q&A last night with former Deputy PM Tim Fisher defining the problem as lack of clarity about what is and isn't within entitlement. 

That's just one of many problems but as the heat hurts and levels of trust and confidence go through the floor politicians can blame themselves and their leaders for not sorting this out years ago.

The history of the last such review is set out in the Auditor General's Report on travel entitlements (Chapter 2) tabled in June as Parliament rose for the winter break. 

It's a long sad story of delay and failure by successive governments and parliaments to step up to the plate on recommended reforms to the system.

Pass the parcel 
Four years ago I described it as a case study in slow motion and it hasn't picked up speed since.

The Auditor General raised a red flag about the system as long ago as 2001-02. There were more red flags in a report in 2009 that led/forced the government in September that year to commission you guessed it, a "root and branch review." 

The resulting Belcher Inquiry and Report was the first comprehensive review of federal parliamentary entitlements in over 35 years.

The Labor government received the report in April 2010, held it for a year before releasing it, then acted on two of the 37 recommendations with minister Gary Gray sending the rest off to the Remuneration Tribunal. 

Fundamental reform ignored
Five years on according to the Auditor General something, not always what was recommended, has been done with regard to 17 of the 39 recommendations. But 

"there has been no formal government response to the recommendations of the CROPE (Belcher) report, or subsequent Remuneration Tribunal report, in relation to fundamental reform of the legislative and administrative framework underpinning the provision of Parliamentarians’ ‘tools of trade’." 

That applies to the Parliamentary Entitlements Amendment Bill 2014 , a bill in the Senate since October 2014 and the subject of this Senate Committee report. The Auditor General said  

"the measures included in the Bill do not address the overarching structural inadequacies of the existing non‐remuneration entitlements framework that have been consistently highlighted in independent reviews and commentary."

Proposals in the 2015–16 Budget for further amendment to existing entitlements, yet to be further advanced, don't do it either. The Auditor General:

"The Budget proposals in themselves do not address the need for the more extensive reform that has been highlighted by earlier independent reviews. In the absence of such reform, Parliamentarians’ entitlements will continue to be provided through a patchwork framework that has been the subject of only limited enhancements. As a consequence, there will continue to be:

• a lack of transparency as to the particular purposes for which entitlements have been accessed, which can be expected to give rise to continued concerns that the framework is providing greater latitude to Parliamentarians in their use of public money than might be expected in the public interest; and
• a heightened risk of Parliamentarians being criticised for the judgements they individually make in relation to whether a particular use of publically funded resources was within the terms of the relevant entitlement and represented an efficient, effective, economical and ethical use of public resources."

Public service advice
It's not for want of trying by the public servants involved.

The Auditor General reports the Department of Finance has run the issue up to incumbent special ministers of state to no avail, first in September 2011 and most recently in November 2013 in briefs that presented a proposed legislative framework reflecting the Belcher committee's recommendations. Ministers didn't buy in. 

Other weaknesses and gaps
Apart from the absence of "a consistent, simple and transparent framework for providing Parliamentarians with the ‘tools of trade’ required to undertake their respective duties"
other weaknesses and gaps in the system include:

• public disclosures by Finance do not have a basis in legislation;

• none of the Belcher "recommended additional measures to further enhance the public disclosure of entitlements expenditure have been implemented." "A November 2013 departmental proposal to the (Special Minister of State Ronaldson) that there would be merit in providing more timely, and potentially more detailed, public reporting on entitlements expenditure has also not been actioned." (Katherine Murphy in The Guardian on why its time to get serious about disclosure for political donations, lobbying activity and the use of parliamentary entitlements:"Corporations are required to operate in a system of continuous disclosure. So should politics." Amen to that.)

• payments by the parliamentary departments, not Finance, to for or on behalf of senators and members are not published and parliamentarians voted to exclude the parliamentary departments from the FOI act (My gripe, not Belcher or the AG);
• there is no link between public declarations of interests and travel and other use of entitlements, and no single site searchable database of all we should know about our parliamentarians (ditto);

• the expenditure by departments in support of members of parliament who are ministers is not published (ditto);

• certification of all usage in a given six month period that expenditure was in accordance with the entitlement "remains a voluntary process with variable levels of adherence by Parliamentarians." The Auditor General doesn't name two parliamentarians who haven't certified expenditure for any of the five six month periods since the requirement was introduced. (The published lists reveal a blank for every period against the names Senator Stephen Conroy and Senator Bob Katter.)

• the scope of eligible entitlements and what would and would not be publicly funded is yet to be clarified; 

• definitive advice isn't available about the terms "parliamentary, electorate and official business" that are are used as eligibility criteria for over 50 entitlements. Finance does provide some advice when sought by parliamentarians and staff. However ASKMAPS, an advisory service commenced operations in August 2011. According to the Auditor General, as a result of low uptake Finance decided to cease the service in October 2012 as a savings measure.

• some entitlements including travel are subject to ‘conventions' that have no legal basis for example publicly funded travel by incumbents during election campaigns up to the point (usually at the end of the campaign) of the leader's policy launch.

Bronwyn Bishop's charter charges are now being investigated by the Department of Finance in accordance with the Minchin Protocol. The Protocol remains as drafted in 1998. 

The Auditor General notes it "has been long recognised that the document itself would benefit from amendment to ensure its terms transparently reflect actual practice in dealing with allegations of entitlements misuse, which is not currently the case; and enhance its efficacy as an accountability governance document."

What odds an announcement soon of another root and branch review?

Parliamentarians perks- accountability framework full of holes

Adam Gartrell in Fairfax Media has shown what can result from digging into the report on expenditure against entitlements by Parliamentarians, former Parliamentarians and surviving spouses or de facto partners of former Parliamentarians published by the Department of Finance. 

The bald disclosure by Finance that Speaker Bronwyn Bishop spent $5227 for a chartered helicopter flight from Melbourne to Geelong (well, and return) turned into a journalists delight when Gartrell discovered the expenditure was to attend a Liberal party function. It's since become a cartoonists bonanza and worse for Ms Bishop.

How many other scandalous uses of taxpayers money are hidden away in the small print of "Official Business" we won't know until Gartrell and others do the digging.

But as to the big picture: 

Nothing close to real time disclosure
Information about use of entitlements administered by Finance is published every six months. 

The current spate of interest in Ms Bishop, Opposition MP Ken O'Dowd claimed public money to attend rugby and a few others relies on the latest report, for the period 1 July 2014-31 December 2014. Some of the expenditure was incurred a year before recent publication. 

The information is published at the government's discretion and is not underpinned by legislation. 

There is no link between the official parliamentary websites of members and senators (at www.aph.gov.au) and details of their entitlement expenditures published by Finance.

No comprehensive reporting 
Finance reports on domestic travel, car costs, overseas travel, Travelling Allowance, office facilities costs, office administrative costs and family travel and car transport costs as advised by other Departments in respect of Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House.
 
However other entitlements of members and senators are paid by the relevant parliamentary department, the Department of House of Representatives or the Department of the Senate. These include salaries and electorate allowances, additional salaries and support provided to parliamentary office holders, superannuation entitlements, resettlement allowance payments, and services and facilities to support parliamentarians in Parliament House including the cost of office accommodation, computing and other equipment, telephones, newspapers and stationery. 

None of these payments are published and can't be accessed under FOI because parliament exempted itself from the act in June 2013.

Nor are the costs of departmental support for Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries including for official hospitality.

Reform ignored 
Australian National Audit Office Report: Administration of Travel Entitlements Provided to Parliamentarians 2015 (emphasis added)

"The conduct of an independent ‘root and branch’ review of Parliamentarians’ entitlements following the completion of ANAO’s 2009–10 audit report gave some cause for optimism that improvements would be made to the entitlements framework and its administration. However, fundamental weaknesses in the framework remain. Principally, this is because independent recommendations for substantive legislative and administrative reform developed to simplify current arrangements and safeguard the interests of the Commonwealth and Parliamentarians, or alternative measures to address recognised fundamental issues with the framework, have not been actioned. As a result, the framework under which Parliamentarians’ non-remuneration entitlements are provided has continued to be complex and opaque, with travel entitlements recognised as representing one of the areas most affected by those factors.

Public interest in disclosure
Australian Information Commissioner Professor McMillan in AK
 where an unnamed member battled to prevent disclosure of information by Finance and Deregulation about use of entitlements:

Parliamentary entitlements are publicly funded, administered and scrutinised. There are strong public interest considerations that support transparency concerning these matters, and in particular, transparency concerning whether there has been compliance with government guidelines. Members of Parliament would reasonably expect public scrutiny of their use of Parliamentary entitlements occurring at any time during their Parliamentary career.

Things in the states are worse
Virtually nothing is published other than in annual reports.
Just recently the NSW Auditor-General found that 22 MPs did not complete an annual Declaration stating that benefits accrued from loyalty/incentive schemes, as a consequence of using their allowance and entitlements, were used only for Parliamentary duties and not for private purposes. None were named.

Follow the Scots:  
Simplification and transparency along the lines of a single site monthly online publication of details of all payments and expenditure are what is needed. Putting it up on the internet and making it searchable by member along the lines of this Scottish Parliament system would be a step in the right direction.

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.

New light shines on parliamentarians' entitlements

Rosie Williams at InfoAus has turned published government information into something more searchable for transparency and accountability purposes, this time using details published by Department of Finance about use of entitlements by Federal parliamentarians. 

Finance publishes claims/repayments twice a year, six months after the end of each period. They have improved accessibility over time, now presenting information about individual senators and members by state and territory. 

The entitlement picture is still far from complete as outlined in October last year. On the broader issue, the government's reaction to the scandal that came to light at that time was entirely inadequate.

(Publication of information about use of entitlements by the states remains firmly entrenched in the Dark Ages.)

Rosie has provided new search functions (Rosie @Info_Aus is interested in feedback, corrections) that enable easier access to Finance material including by Party and type of expense making these tallies available:
ALP
Coalition
The Greens.
  
By expense type providing comparative tables,among them:

Travelling Allowance
Overseas Travel
Chartered Flights
Telecommunications 


And sure to attract interest the details of Repayments and Adjustments

Rosie turned parts of the Federal Budget Papers into more searchable information with BudgetAus two years ahead of this year's first step by the government to publish data from the 2014-2015 Federal Budget in Excel & CSV formats.

She also developed KnowYourPlace an interface to search the ABS data on Socio Economic Indicators by town, council area, electorate or state.

Nick Evershed at The Guardian, one of the small but growing band of data journalists also utilised Finance material on administrative costs to locate printing, distribution and website costs for each parliamentarian in various time blocks to provide this insight into use of entitlements Politicians billing taxpayers twice for election campaign material 

Slipper guilty verdict sends a powerful message but won't fix transparency failings

The guilty finding against former Speaker Peter Slipper for dishonesty in the use of his cabcharge should send a message to parliamentarians about the need for close attention to the rules. But as we know from the big fuss last year and earlier this year when instances of questionable use emerged, the rules can be a bit rubbery.

What we do know about use of entitlements largely comes from information published by the Department of Finance about the payments it administers. Last week, the department published details of expenditure in the second half of last year for travel, office fitouts, telecommunications and publications, and for travel, office facilities and office administration for eligible former Parliamentarians. (Here's the take in The Age.)

While this is welcome, and miles ahead of what goes at state level, the system overall is a far cry from the simple, timely, comprehensive transparency and accountability model needed for use of entitlements by parliamentarians and related integrity matters.

Half yearly publication on line of details of payments by Finance goes back to 2008. Reporting categories were expanded in 2009. Publication is nowhere near real time. The latest, July to December 2013 includes information about expenditure some of which was incurred over 12 months ago. Searching across members and senators and over different six month periods is complex, putting it mildly.The Belcher Committee four years ago noted that publication by Finance is voluntary/discretionary and recommended it be enshrined in legislation.Nothing has happened on that score since, or on a raft of other Belcher recommendations.

Details of use of entitlements paid by Finance before 2008 is not published. Possibly available under Freedom of Information. Probably wait at least 30 days and you may have a drawn out fight on your hands. With regard to some information, the member or senator may argue that it is personal and should not be disclosed as Prime Minister Gillard did unsuccessfully in 2012-13 concerning a repayment made in 2007. That was classic gaming the system by grasping at straws to delay disclosure of information that clearly was not exempt.

Payments to, or support provided to senators and members by the Parliamentary departments are not published. They can't be accessed under FOI because parliament exempted itself from the act in June last year. Depending on what you ask for the parliamentary departments may at their discretion provide information or documents. Payments include salaries and electorate allowances, additional salaries and support provided to parliamentary office holders, superannuation entitlements, resettlement allowance payments, and services and facilities to support parliamentarians in Parliament House including the cost of office accommodation, computing and other equipment, telephones, newspapers and stationery: 

Gifts and interests: Published by the House and Senate as a series of notifications by the member but no up to date list of current interests is published and the registers have no search function. 

Payments to or on behalf of ministers, assistant ministers and parliamentary secretaries by their departments,and the cost of support provided are not published. These include official cars for the Minister and spouse; departmental liaison staff; additional stationery, office requisites, furniture and equipment in Ministers’ and Parliamentary Secretaries’ Parliament House Offices and their home State offices; official hospitality; and a range of other services. Maybe available under FOI.

At the Federal level and in the states, apart from sensible, clear rules, we need fully transparent timely disclosure on a comprehensive single fully searchable site to follow the money paid to or on behalf of parliamentarians and ministers, and declared interests.

Parliamentary entitlement reform way short of the mark

The announcement today that the Abbott government accepts changes to the system of parliamentary entitlements are necessary is welcome, warrants a few headlines and will enable ministers to parry questions when parliament resumes next week. Former ALP special ministers of state Ludwig and Gray who sat on reform of the system for years presumably shouldn't raise the issue even if given the chance.

But the measures announced in this Media Release and Attachment issued by Special Minister of State Ronaldson fall way short of what is needed. And the policy process - dusting off, then cherry-picking from a report that has been sitting around largely unnoticed for the last three years, with an added twist here and there - is fail grade by any measure.

The changes mainly concern use of travel entitlements. No surprise following the mainstream media's belated discovery of information published since 2008 on the Department of Finance website.

But they won't deliver a comprehensive, easily accessible, timely, searchable method for disclosure of what taxpayers' money is paid to, for or on behalf of parliamentarians and how that money is used as they go about their business. 

Forget the petty cash details, much more is involved,

Quite apart from the rules regarding entitlements that need tightening, and in this respect the government is at least moving in the right direction, there is no mention of any change to the timeliness of information published by Finance regarding payments it makes. These details are put on the web months after the event, and nowhere close to real time. The latest published are for the six months to December 2012.

Ditto, regarding the separate payments made to for or on behalf of parliamentarians by the Department of the House of Representatives, Department of Senate and Department of Parliamentary Services. They aren't published at all.  

No mention either of any intention to remedy the hole in the accountability system that parliament created when it rushed through earlier in the year legislation to exempt the parliamentary departments from the Freedom of Information Act  The departments are collectively allocated around $170 million each year.

Then there are the payments made on behalf of ministers by their departments, for transport and hospitality for example. None of this information is published.

Minister Ronaldson made no mention of what is really needed on the transparency front - full transparency in the form of a single website that brings together information for each parliamentarian regarding all payments from whatever source.Together with other disclosables such as each member's interests as recorded in the mandatory register of interests. 

As to process, Policy 101 might suggest  a better result on a hot topic such as this would involve a process encompassing an acknowledgment that change is warranted, throwing out ideas on what might be done to achieve agreed public purposes, and inviting inputs on how we might set new high standards and define the system that might deliver them.

Neither the Coalition government nor the ALP in government or opposition seem much interested in process or reform, of this kind.

Blackout over payments to state politicians

Lack of transparency is a feature of all the state and territory arrangements for payment and use of entitlements as recounted here often over the years. 

In the wake of media interest in our Federal pollies, Sean Nicholls for The Sydney Morning Herald and Rosemary Bolger for the Launceston Examiner both tried to take a look at the state counterparts and ran into a brick wall when asking for information in NSW and Tasmania. I think those who try it elsewhere will also come up empty handed other than dated global figures, if anywhere tucked away in annual reports.

One of the contributing factors is that the parliaments/parliamentary departments are not covered by the relevant state or territory freedom of information legislation. Of course, better than this, all the relevant information should be published on line on a single web site, in close to real time, and fully searchable, but FOI coverage would be one small step in the right direction. 

That this isn't the case is a scandalous gap in the transparency and accountability systems.

I had been working on the basis that FOI coverage of the Parliament was the situation in Tasmania. Not, as noted in 2009, that anyone has shouted this from the rooftops or that it is obvious from a glance at the Right to Information Act.

My analysis then and now is that the Tasmanian Parliament as a public authority is subject to the Right to Information Act with respect to information in its possession that relates to matters of administration. This would seem to extend to payments to and acquittals by members, and other use of public funds managed by the offices of the clerks.

But Rosemary Bolger writes

Entitlements are signed off by the clerks of the upper or lower houses and remain forever hidden, protected by an exemption from Right to Information. Why the secrecy? I suspect it's more laziness than a deliberate attempt to bury the figures. 

When I contacted her she said this is what she was told eventually when someone at Parliament House answered her question. I suggested she should take it further.  

The media in other states and territories should be making a fuss about the opaque system that operates and demanding better. 

The citizenry should join in and start with their local member.

Parliamentarians entitlements-following the money ain't easy

The entitlements saga rolls on as more eyes take a look at published information on the Department of Finance website. 

Leaving aside the nature of the claims, here is why the system is a far cry from the simple and transparent model needed:

Publication on line of details of entitlement payments by the Department of Finance commencing in 2008. Reporting categories were expanded in 2009. Here is the latest-for the period July-December 2012. Searching across members and senators and over different six month periods is complex, putting it mildly; publication of payments in any event is nowhere near real time. The Belcher Committee noted that publication is voluntary and recommended it be enshrined in legislation.

Use of entitlements paid by Finance before 2008: Not published. Make a Freedom of Information application. Probably wait at least 30 days. With regard to some information, the member or senator may argue that it is personal and should not be disclosed as Prime Minister Gillard did in 2012-13 concerning a repayment made in 2007. Be prepared to appeal the decision. It could be a slow process.

Payments to, or support provided to senators and members by the Parliamentary departments such as salaries and electorate allowances, additional salaries and support provided to parliamentary office holders, superannuation entitlements, resettlement allowance payments, and services and facilities to support parliamentarians in Parliament House including the cost of office accommodation, computing and other equipment, telephones, newspapers and stationery: Not published. Can't be accessed under FOI because parliament exempted itself from the act in June this year.

Gifts and interests: Published by the House as a series of notifications by the member of changes but no up to date list of current interests and the register has no search function. The Senate register may be different-but none of the links to pages for individual senators opened for me.

Payments to or on behalf of ministers, assistant ministers and parliamentary secretaries by their departments, or the cost of support provided such as the cost of official cars for the Minister and spouse; departmental liaison staff; additional stationery, office requisites, furniture and equipment in Ministers’ and Parliamentary Secretaries’ Parliament House Offices and their home State offices; official hospitality; and a range of other services: Not published. Make an FOI application. Follow the same path as for Finance pre 2008.

The current fuss shows the rules need to be sorted. And that we need fully transparent timely disclosure and a comprehensive single site searchable system to follow the money.

Parliamentarians entitlements-travel just part of the bigger picture

Reports about newsworthy parliamentarians' entitlement claims and of repayments for some questionable ones have been mostly sourced from details published on the internet by the Department of Finance since 2009. Some of the longer pieces for example Tom Allard in the SMH are starting to raise bigger picture issues about complexity and the need for a fair, simplified fully transparent system.

However the Prime Minister in Brunei said that as far as travel entitlements are concerned

I'm not proposing to change the system. If people want to make suggestions, they’re welcome to make suggestions, but I’m not proposing to change the system.If people want to make suggestions, they’re welcome to make suggestions, but I’m not proposing to change the system.

FactCheck confirms the rules are not clear.

More broadly the Belcher committee made plenty of other suggestions, recommendations in fact, for change in 2010 that have been ignored so far and others have been floated since.

Publication of the details of payment of entitlements by Finance for example is voluntary.The Committee recommended it should be underpinned by legislation. 

Other recommendations about governance arrangements were ignored as well.
 
The review didn't even look at the general provision of services at Parliament House to senators and members but still referred to the opaque nature of the system. Its recommendation on that score should be ratcheted up into a mandatory publishing requirement when Parliament gets back to accepting FOI coverage: 

That the presiding officers be encouraged to publish on a regular basis details of expenditure on services and facilities provided to individual senators and members by the chamber departments.

 On another front, those seeking access to information about use of entitlements by a senator or member in the pre-2009 period must run the freedom of Information gauntlet, with all the delays and obstacles that can arise when either the agency or a third party wants to argue the toss or at least slow things down.This shouldn't be necessary.

With regard to some information at least Finance in processing the application consults the person concerned on the basis that the senator or member may contend the disclosure is of personal information, would be unreasonable and contrary to the public interest.

Case in point: the decision by Australian Information Commissioner Professor McMillan in 'AK' v Department of Finance and Deregulation [2013] AICmr 64. An unnamed member of parliament argued unsuccessfully against disclosure on this basis of a document that revealed in 2007 she had repaid $4200 for use of the taxpayer provided private plated car in 2006 by her partner in driving throughout Victoria as a salesman of hair products. The car is provided for Parliamentary, electorate or official business, family travel and private purposes, but not for commercial purposes

It subsequently emerged the parties were Ms Julia Gillard MP and Tim Mathieson.

Hedley Thomas of The Australian was onto this in October 2012 when he made the application.The documents that revealed the repayment were released to him in September 2013.

(Addendum: Finance posted the released documents on its Disclosure Log under the heading 'Documents relating to government funded vehicle'- in separate pdf files that would take a fair bit of digging to find or interrogate. Gillard's name is mentioned as the MP.)

This sounds like one of those classic 'wait out' and 'grind down' the applicant stories. In this case Ms Gillard, Prime Minister at the time, was a third party relying on a wing and a prayer, as Professoir McMillan made clear in rejecting the exemption claim. Delay in the facts coming to light may have been the main objective.

On taking office as Prime Minister, Ms Gillard famously proclaimed let the sun shine in.
Given the message sent by the PM as AK was it any wonder those close to the grindstone might have taken the proclamation with a grain of salt?

Of course don't even think about digging deep at Parliament House. Not only are details of payments not published, Parliament exempted itself from the FOI act.

Red hot if you ask me.

Reform is needed and badly.

Over to Prime Minister Abbott, presumably still intending to address the trust deficit.

Parliamentary entitlements-it's not just expenses in attending a wedding

Parliamentarians and their use of entitlements is getting a good but belated run in the mainstream media-hopefully not just because it is a slow news day. I did ABC Radio AM and ABC News 24 Breakfast this morning. And ABC Radio National Drive and a cameo on 7.30 Report with most on the cutting room floor. In case you missed it- some of the weaknesses in the system. Also a post from April 2011 about the Belcher report, back in the news.

MP avoids entitlement spotlight until after the election

On the subject of trust, as we were..

The name of the current member of parliament 'AK' who features in this Freedom of Information decision by Australian Information Commissioner Professor McMillan - 'AK' v Department of Finance and Deregulation [2013] AICmr 64 - isn't mentioned but plenty will venture a guess. 

The member has been battling since October 2012 to prevent disclosure of information by Finance and Deregulation about use of entitlements, and lost out in this latest round.

However as AK has a further right of review to the AAT, information that might identify AK or reveal the substance of the documents in contention is not included in the decision. The Applicant, Hedley Thomas of The Australian who obviously knows who AK is, can't get the documents the commissioner ruled should be disclosed until AK's review rights are exhausted or extinguished by lapse of time, conveniently sometime after the election on 7 September.

The strong public interest case for disclosure as outlined in Professor McMillan's decision would apply equally to disclosure of information about use of entitlements and support services provided to members of parliament by the parliamentary departments.

Parliamentarians voted three months ago to exempt these agencies entirely from the FOI act. If the incoming government or parliamentary leaders can be inspired or shamed into restitution along the lines of Dr Hawke's recommendation for partial FOI coverage, scope for argument about what is covered and for delay of the kind seen in 'AK' must be avoided through precise legislation.

Thomas sought access to documents relating to the use of Parliamentary entitlements by AK in 2006 and 2007.  When consulted as a third party, AK argued against disclosure of some documents based on the personal information conditional exemption. Four documents remained in contention, described in the commissioner's decision as a letter written to the Department by a member of AK’s staff in 2007; records of two telephone conversations in 2007 between a member of AK’s staff and a Departmental officer, and another Departmental record arising from the earlier communication. 

"The content of the documents concerned AK’s use of Parliamentary entitlements, and in particular whether AK complied with relevant government guidelines, and steps taken by AK to ensure compliance."[12]. "The central facts disclosed in the documents are that there may have been an incident of non-compliance with government guidelines on Parliamentary entitlements; that AK’s office identified this non-compliance; and that AK took steps to remedy the possible non-compliance." [21].

 Professor McMillan concluded the information was personal information, but disclosure was not unreasonable, and on balance in the public interest.

Not unreasonable:

22. I do not think that disclosure of that personal information about AK would be unreasonable. Members of Parliament would be aware that their enjoyment of Parliamentary entitlements must comply with relevant rules or guidelines, and that this will be independently scrutinised. Members would, I am satisfied, have an expectation that this scrutiny may extend to public scrutiny, either in response to a request made under the FOI Act or through the proactive release of information by a government agency. In that event, it could reasonably be expected that information would be released as to whether the enjoyment of Parliamentary entitlements complied with government guidelines, including whether the enjoyment of those entitlements by a family member complied with the guidelines. 

23. I am further satisfied that disclosure of this information in response to an FOI Act request would serve a public purpose. Disclosure supports the effective oversight of public expenditure, and may shed light on the workings of government in administering entitlements and repayments.

As to public interest considerations, relevant if he was wrong on the unreasonable point, Professor McMillan outlines those that favour disclosure and gives little or no weight to those submitted on behalf of AK against disclosure [26 -37], concluding:

38. As earlier noted, Parliamentary entitlements are publicly funded, administered and scrutinised. There are strong public interest considerations that support transparency concerning these matters, and in particular, transparency concerning whether there has been compliance with government guidelines. Members of Parliament would reasonably expect public scrutiny of their use of Parliamentary entitlements occurring at any time during their Parliamentary career.

 Hear, hear.

Now who was that talking about trust?

Parliamentarians travel reminds of gap in transparency standard.

Overseas travel by parliamentarians at taxpayers expense is no state secret. 

So details of 'study tours' by the soon to retire Senator Crossin and Simon Crean (each accompanied by spouse) are out there, and costs will eventually appear on the website at the Department of Finance which pays for these and other entitlements of members and senators. 

The Prime Minister when asked, said the rules regarding travel may need "sharpening up."

Hmm. Wonder whether he noticed that the transparency and accountability standard for payments to, for or on behalf of parliamentarians by the parliamentary departments has just been dulled to indecipherable? 

Just a few weeks ago, when Mr Rudd was on the backbench the Government and Opposition combined to legislate a blanket exemption for those departments from the Freedom of Information Act. Not just payments to or for parliamentarians are beyond reach of FOI. So too are all documents concerning the operation of the three departments which receive a budget allocation of around $170 million.

For the record entitlements paid by the parliamentary departments according to the fine print of the handbook include salaries ($185,000 per year) and electorate allowances (between $32000 and $46000); additional salaries for parliamentary office holders; superannuation; resettlement allowance payable to some who retire or lose a seat after short tenure; services and facilities to support parliamentarians in Parliament House including office accommodation, computing and other equipment, telephones, newspapers and stationery, $1800 in postage for parliamentary or electorate purposes (from $40,000 administered by Finance) and IT equipment and facilities and administration of IT in electorate offices.

Oh, and the cost of travel as a member of a delegation to conferences of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) and Inter- Parliamentary Union (IPU).

Then there are support costs for office holders such as the Speaker and President of the Senate. The brief FOI window that opened on the parliament revealed former speaker Peter Slipper spent $1248 on coat and tails and $8500 on catering, among other necessities.

As to transparency about payments to parliamentarians by the state parliaments, don't ask.