G20 countries chance to lead on transparent company ownership?

Support Transparency International and the UnmaskThe Corrupt Campaign: 

"We want the leaders of the world’s biggest economies – the G20 – to publish lists of the real owners of all companies, and to make it harder for the corrupt to travel internationally and enjoy their ill-gotten gains. Help us send a loud message to global leaders on Thunderclap to unmask the corrupt."

To open or not open the curtains on tax paid or not paid by corporates?

'........that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them?'

All power to the AFR:

Assistant Treasurer Arthur Sinodinos is under pressure to make companies publicly reveal how much tax they pay in Australia after previously signalling he wants to scrap transparency laws.

More transparency for the private sector should be on the cards, not just for trade unions

In the light of what members of the HSU didn't know the Federal Government plans to force  trade unions to be more open:

The Government has announced that it will take action to enhance the accountability and transparency of registered organisations and to strengthen penalties, and improve Fair Work Australia’s investigation processes following the conclusion of the Fair Work Australia investigation into the National Office of the Health Services Union.

Good stuff, but a broader issue concerning the adequacy of transparency obligations of private sector bodies generally cries out for attention as well.

As Johan Lidberg of Monash University concludes his piece on freedom of information in the 2012 MEAA Press Freedom report (pdf) (p 29):

However 2011 saw no movement at all in the most challenging areas of independent information access – corporate information. This is noteworthy as actions of big corporations arguably have as much influence (at times more) over our daily lives, as do governments. Access to corporate information remains the final frontier in the information access battle .

Elsewhere, almost on cue, George Monbiot writing in The Guardian yesterday tried to fire this up in the UK, reflecting on News International's previously tightly held secrets:

In this column I will make a proposal that sounds – at first – monstrous, but I hope to persuade you is both reasonable and necessary: that freedom of information laws should be extended to the private sector.....
The purpose of this monstrous proposal is not just to shine a light into the rattling cupboards of private companies, but to change the way in which they behave. A body that acts as if the world is watching presents less of a threat to the public interest than a body that knows it won't get caught. Would News International have acted as it did if its emails could have been revealed as a matter of course rather than a matter of chance? If it is true that "governments don't rule the world, Goldman Sachs rules the world", should we not be entitled to know what Goldman Sachs is up to? Is that not the only means we have of preventing its unelected power from becoming tyrannical?

It's not that monstrous. Readers might recall that a gutsy minister of our own raised the issue of FOI for the private sector in 2009.

In a post last June (and this earlier post in January 2011) I gave a rundown on Senator Faulkner's attempt to give the issue oxygen through an ALRC reference when he was Special Minister of State. The publicly announced cabinet decision to take that step came to nothing once Faulkner went to Defence that year. Then Attorney General McClelland showed no interest, and the public service in advising on ALRC references, said "move on."

No one in government or the opposition has said a public word on the topic since. 

Examination of transparency standards and how disclosure of information held by the private sector could enhance public knowledge and debate on issues of importance to the community should be on someone's agenda, given:

• the power corporations exercise over the every day life of most of us,
• the privatisation of functions previously in the hands of government but now carried out by the private sector,
• the emergence of new private sector services that resemble public utilities in their scope and importance,
• the adequacy/inadequacy of available information about private sector environmental impacts, or public health and community safety issues,
• sectoral issues concerning, for example, disclosure by financial institutions that governments effectively guaranteed as a result of the GFC, and other corporates that might be in the "too big to fail "category.

 Any takers? Not holding my breath.

"FOI for the private sector" on the agenda at Canberra law conference

The 2011 National Administrative Law Conference will be held in Canberra on 21-22 July, with the theme "Democracy Participation and Administrative Law." I'm not going this time but a number of sessions are of interest, apart from the big picture topics: Sven Bluemmel, Western Australian Information Commissioner on Corporatisation and electronic records: on a collision course with administrative justice?; and FOI papers by Dr James Popple, Australian Freedom of Information Commissioner on Commonwealth FOI, and Avinesh Chand, Clayton Utz, Extending FOI to the private sector—accountability strikes back or a bridge too far?

I will be particularly interested in what Chand has to say about extending FOI.

Senator Faulkner’s announcement in March 2009 came as a surprise and out of the blue.

"the Government will (later this year) provide the Australian Law Reform Commission with a reference to consider whether FOI should be extended to, or another disclosure regime provided for the private sector."

While this proposal had been considered but not recommended in the Commission's 1995 Open Government Report, Senator Faulkner said

"the Government considers it timely to re-examine this issue in the context of the general reforms to freedom of information and developments on disclosure regimes in both public and private sectors."

There was no attempt then or since to explain or sell the idea. After the announcement it disappeared, apart from a couple of desultory repetitions of the intention in parliamentary debate in 2009.  

In late 2010 I made an FOI application for documents on the subject held by the departments of the Prime Minister and the Attorney General and wrote about what was revealed in January. It seems when Senator Faulkner moved to Defence later in 2009 the government dithered over what to do with an initiative approved by Cabinet but largely owned by him. Eventually in April 2010 public servants-who apparently were not involved in research or advice about the idea in the first place-recommended moving on. Attorney General McClelland was happy to approve other references to the ALRC. Nothing was said publicly that the FOI reference had effectively been ditched.

The draft terms of reference contained in documents released to Open and Shut state the subject was to be referred to the Commission 

Government repeats commitment to "private sector FOI" inquiry

It's been mentioned twice before by Government speakers going all the way back to Senator Faulkner in March last year. The mention of acting on this by the end of 2009 has long faded. There hasn't been a skerrick of detail. But it popped up again in the Second Reading Speech in the Senate on the Freedom of Information Reform bills last week.

"The Government will also consider further improvements and will ask the Australian Law Reform Commission to inquire into whether the FOI Act or another disclosure regime should apply to the private sector."

Thanks to Open Australia for the link.

(Update and Correction: see this later post as to why this wasn't the case.)

Integrity could benefit from twice promised ALRC review of private sector disclosures

Ross Gittins in Integrity flourishes in openness  in the Sydney Morning Herald found an eye-opener in a new book, The Economics of Integrity, by the New York journalist Anna Bernasek, published by HarperCollins: markets and everyday transactions are based on mutual trust and confidence. It's a point that's also true about dealings with government. And a reminder that kicking around somewhere within government are terms of reference, initially promised before the end of last year, for an Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry into private sector disclosures.

Federal Government still interested in examining private sector disclosure rules

Thanks to the alert reader who noticed in the fine print of the Second Reading Speech on the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill, confirmation that the Government intends to go ahead with a reference to the Australian Law Reform Commission on private sector disclosures. Timing is vague, compared to then Special Minister of State Senator Faulkner's statement in March 2009,

"Terms of reference for this review will be finalised by ministers later in the year."

Parliamentary Secretary Byrne on 26 November gave no indication of when this is likely when he said:

To ensure the reform package delivers effective change, provision is made in the bill for the act to be reviewed two years after the commencement of the reforms. The government will also consider further improvements and will ask the Australian Law Reform Commission to inquire into whether the FOI Act or another disclosure regime should apply to the private sector."

Business is not out of the woods on this one, despite these earlier signs. Strangely in March and November and the months in between there has not been a public word from the Government about the thinking behind this initiative. Presumably issues concerning disclosures by private sector entities that carry out public functions, receive large amounts of public money, or relate to public health, safety and environmental impacts of their activities are part of the picture. All will be clear sometime.

In passing noticed that Bronwyn Bishop (Liberal Mackellar) in Parliament in June spoke about Australian participation in an Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly in Addis Ababa earlier in the year "and a reservation from Australia ( accepted by the meeting) relating to freedom of information, and that was that it should apply to governments and not to the private sector." Not exactly consistent with the Government's expressed interest in exploring the issue more closely. The IPU Resolution adopted at the meeting, among many statements on Freedom of Expression and The Right to Information:

"Encourages the development of freedom of information beyond State actors to encompass significant private-sector companies and bodies."

Thanks to Open Australia for the Hansard links.