The trust thing-where to from here?

The absence of trust and confidence in politicians, government and institutions is striking.

 The Readers Digest Survey of who is held in high regard for integrity and substance sees politicians ranked 49 of 50 professions, with no politician ranked higher than 68 in a list of 100 public figures. The Prime Minister is at 79. Roughly confirming the Morgan Poll.
in April where 12% of Australians rated Federal (and state) parliamentarians highly for ethics and honesty beating out three of 50 30 professions. The trend line before the Budget according to the Essential Report was that trust in political leadership dropped 13 points since February.

Then there's the Lowy Poll 2014:

"... 60% of Australian adults, and just 42% of 18-29 year-olds say ‘democracy is preferable to any other kind of government’. Only a small majority of the population (53%) choose ‘a good democracy’ over a ‘strong economy’. For those who do not see democracy as the preferable form of government, the strongest reasons are that ‘democracy is not working because there is no real difference between the policies of the major parties’ (45% citing this as a major reason) and ‘democracy only serves the interests of a few and not the majority of society’ (42%)."

Then Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott was on the money in September 2013
when he identified the trust deficit as the biggest deficit facing the nation. But things have got worse not better.

Lack of trust translates to a major governance problem. Government in a democracy occupies a position based on the notion of a public trust. As well lack of trust complicates the making of difficult decisions and government's capacity to see them through.

It is not a unique problem to Australia.

Books are being written about why it is so but among many contributing causes are lack of honesty and consistency, overuse of spin, excessive secrecy, failure to genuinely consult and test ideas, and pre-occupation with short termism and political advantage.

The Oxford Martin Commission report Now for the Long Term explores some of these issues. 

Chair Pascal Lamy visited Australia two weeks ago. Canberra was on his itinerary and he met at least one minister, Andrew Robb, Treasury Secretary Parkinson and officials involved in the G 20 process.

Let's hope Lamy was able to refer them to the Agenda for the Long Term section of the report, page 59 and the recommendations for Innovative, Open and Reinvigorated Institutions that include:

Optimise new forms of political participation, transparency and accountability, whilst amplifying the voices of global citizens. The Commission recommends renewed commitment to transparent government and deeper political engagement...

The report describes the Open Government Partnership as "a particularly welcome development" bringing together government, civil society and private enterprise in member countries to address governance and means to improve transparency, accountability and public participation with independent international oversight of their efforts. 

It's such a good model

The Commission calls for the OGP platform to be adopted by other institutions and governments, and for the platform’s work to be expanded to strengthen coordination between citizens across countries.

Readers will know of Australia's dithering over whether to join the OGP now running without resolution for close to three years. When I checked with the Office of the Minister for Finance this week on the current position before heading off to the C20 Summit in Melbourne:

the government has made no decision to join or withdraw the Labor government's May 2013 notice of intention to join.

Not of its own a decision likely to reverse the trust decline, but the penny should drop sometime that a journey starts with a step in the right direction.

C20 Global Summit this week in Melbourne.

The C20 Global Summit will take place in Melbourne this Friday and Saturday so a big crowd can be expected to chew over the four key policy themes: inclusive growth and employment; infrastructure; climate and sustainability, and governance. Position papers on each topic are here.

I'm on a panel on Friday on Open Government to be chaired by Greg Thompson, Executive Director International, Transparency International Australia and Member C20 Australia Steering Committee. Others panelists are

• Natalia Soebagio – Chair, Executive Board Transparency International Indonesia
• Martin Tisne – Director of Policy, Omidyar Network (major funder of the Open Government Partnership to the tune of $1.48 million)
• Eloise Todd – Advocacy Director, ONE International.

Hope to catch you if you are there.

National Information Policy Conference

The National Information Policy Conference in Canberra last week drew a sell out crowd of 270 and had an interesting vibe as well as some interesting presentations. Overall the tone of discussion about  access to information issues, the duty to treat information as a national resource and examples of some government agencies being responsive in a variety of ways, with Freedom of Information just part of the bigger picture, was a far cry from the FOI-secrecy battleground of just a few years ago. Not that that battle is entirely a thing of the past.

Some of the papers and presentations have been posted on the Australian Information Commissioner's website. One of those, Senator Faulkner's reflections on the Freedom of Information reforms had some listeners hearing what they thought was a little stepping back from the open government gusto of 2008-2009. In fact his remarks then and now simply reflect the inherent tensions in balancing openness and other public interests. Another of interest was the presentation by David Glynne Jones of DJG Consulting on Information Governance-an idea whose time in the public sector has surely arrived. 

(Link to PDF of presentation.)

At the same session and right in this groove Tony Corcoran Asssistant Secretary Freedom of Information and Information Management gave a  terrific run down (not yet posted) on (relatively) new thinking in Defence that brings together various information management and disclosure threads including FOI in a service context. In answer to a question about the result of this branch assuming responsibility for FOI from a legal area, Corcoran said compliance with statutory time frames had gone from 12% previously to 100% currently, reinforcing my view that Legal should provide advice when required, not control and manage the FOI function these days.

Ann Steward Australian Government Chief Information Officer, AGIMO  gave a positive and  encouraging account of progress on Gov 2.0 implementation (not yet posted). The best practice examples (ditto) from the Australian National Data Service (until now not known to me) and others in the final session were also eye openers.

The lack of time for questions and discussion at several sessions was disappointing. Tom Burton of the Australian Media and Communications Authority, poacher turned gamekeeper, on Engaging the Public gave a spinner's razamataz version, rather than what  engagement really should involve (link to presentation). And surprisingly Senator Kate Lundy's presentation on Public Sphere which should have been a good story had just a touch of cruel and unusual punishment for this listener at least.

The only oversell was that the conference "would be an opportunity to contribute to... the development of a National Information Policy for Australia", which it wasn't. But on all other fronts an enjoyable and interesting first for what is likely to be an annual event.

A last minor gripe - the name tag with name only. In the absence of detail whence we came and an attendance list the scope for instant recognition or passing interest was limited. If it reflected concern about privacy it was a step too far, and easily addressed by ticking a box on the registration form.

I attended at the invitation of the Office of Australian Information Commissioner and was grateful for that opportunity. And got out of town just ahead of President Obama's caravan-he still doesn't know what he missed.

Minister for FOI stands at number 22, integrity scrapes in at 29

The Gillard Government has nailed its flag to the mast of governing differently (and hopefully better), faced with the situation of no guaranteed majority on any vote in the House of Representatives except where the Budget or a vote of no confidence is concerned, and with specific commitments to independent members and The Greens including on how parliament will operate. And with the Prime Minister's acknowledgment that she heard the peoples' message loud and clear about the need for more open, transparent and accountable government.

So integrity and accountability issues have to be high on the agenda.

Just how these things are to be managed in the Gillard Ministry announced over the weekend remains to be seen. What is clear is that no one at the most senior level (other than the PM) has overall responsibility for policy in these areas. Freedom of Information (and Privacy) have been assigned to Home Affairs and Justice Minister Brendan O'Connor, an experienced member of the outer ministry, now ranked 22 in the the Prime Minister's list of 30 ministers.This suggests these functions move back from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to the Attorney General's Department, a bad idea when suggested by shadow attorney general Brandis during the campaign, and still so in my opinion.(Update: Not just a false alarm, we've ended up with a Minister for Freedom of Information.)

The rest of the integrity issues appear (the Administrative Arrangements Order with the details is yet to be published) to have been assigned to Gary Gray, as Special Minister of State, listed 29 of the 30 ministers, with the function presumably still located in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

In the First Rudd government, Senator Faulkner, as Special Minister of State and Cabinet Secretary was listed fifth in standing in the cabinet, and brought a well earned reputation for honesty and integrity, and years of demonstrated interest in and knowledge of the issues that suggested clout in this area. Faulkner was succeeded in 2009 by Senator Ludwig who didn't bring the same qualities or reputation but was a former shadow attorney general, and was and remained a member of cabinet. Putting combined integrity issues in the Prime Minister's department gave them new central agency status.

Prime Minister Gillard has separated the functions, FOI and Privacy to O'Connor, so far unspecified other functions to Gray as Special Minister of State, with Mark Dreyfus (who at the bar was an expert in Freedom of Information, and contributed to debate, well at least supported the government line, on FOI in parliament, and chaired a parliamentary inquiry into whistleblowing) as Cabinet Secretary. Dreyfus will combine the job with Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. None of the three are cabinet ministers. 

We wish them all well. As O'Connor settles into the job, privacy reform is looking untidy and unsatisfactory; FOI reform in practical terms is still in the "potentially promising" but "could do a lot better" category. There is an ALRC report on reform of secrecy laws that the Government has had since last December in AG's somewhere.

On the broader integrity front, Gray may prove to be an outstanding choice. Dennis Shanahan in The Australian describes him as a relative newcomer who did not flourish under Rudd and says he is  "perfectly suited to Special Minister of State." Elsewhere Gray is mentioned simply as one of the "faceless men" behind the ousting of Kevin Rudd.

Apart from the difficulty of exercising influence arising from (lack of) standing in the hierarchy, Gray appears to have a lot of catching up to do, having not said a word during the last parliament on relevant issues - political donations, lobbying, government advertising, parliamentary entitlements, archives, records etc- now within his domain.

However as a former ALP National Secretary and one time director of corporate affairs for Woodside, Gray is sure to know plenty from those lives about a couple of the issues. He was made an Officer of the Order of Australia in 2003, for service to the Australian Labor Party and to politics "through the introduction of modern campaign techniques (handy when advancing the issue of truth in campaign advertising, an issue for attention as agreed with The Greens), fundraising protocols for all political parties (ditto), affirmative action guidelines, and by strengthening the party's organisational and financial structure." On lobbying, he made it clear in this statement that while he had been prepared to consider at one stage representing James Hardie, this hadn't transpired. (Thanks to Open Australia for the Hansard links.)

Gray is a first time minister having been Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Infrastructure with Responsibility for Northern Regional Australia and Local Government in the Rudd Ministry, and the Dreyfus appointment is a first for him.

In the fullness of time....

Gillard up for more open, accountable and transparent government

With the support of two of the last three uncommitted independents Prime Minister Gillard has edged over the line and back into office, peppering her set pieces and answers to questions with a theme that led to cheering here. We've come a long way since neither leader thought the subject was worth a mention during the campaign.

Some examples (emphasis added):

From the PM's announcement:

"What the Australian people told us, and they told us this in no uncertain terms on that day and on the days that have followed, is this: that we will be held more accountable than ever before, and more than any government in modern memory. We will be held to higher standards of transparency and reform, and it's in that spirit that I approach the task of forming a government......To quote Rob Oakeshott, sunshine is the best disinfectant, and we've agreed to far-reaching reforms that make me as Prime Minister and our government and how it functions more accountable to the Australian people. So, let's draw back the curtains and let the sun shine in; let our parliament be more open than it ever was before. That's real reform, and that's the direct result of the election.'(Actually PM, there's a long line who have used the sunshine quote, going back almost a century to US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, and it's even had a run on this blog from time to time.)

Prompting this lead paragraph in Phillip Coorey's report in the Sydney Morning Herald:

"Julia Gillard has promised to heed the lesson handed to Labor at the election and govern with a new style of openness...Labor sources said last night that discipline within the ALP would have to be rock solid if Ms Gillard were to govern for the next three years as she has promised. The use of expenses and allowances and other behaviour would have to be exemplary across the board."

And the PM's first answer in this interview with Kerry O'Brien on ABC 7.30 Report:

O'Brien:"Julia Gillard, you've been handed a gift today, a chance to escape from the bad odour of those last few months of your government and the axing of Kevin Rudd, kind of a get-out-of-jail card, in a way. How are you going to protect this gift?

JULIA GILLARD, PRIME MINISTER: Well this is an opportunity for the nation, Kerry, an opportunity for the nation to listen to what the Australian electorate told us at this election. I've heard the message loud and clear. People do wanna (sic) see us more open, more accountable, more transparent. I am going to be held to higher standards of accountability than any Prime Minister in the modern age. I'm well aware of that, and I'm going to focus on being up to that challenge. And I'm also well aware that when we go to the polls next time in 2013, Australians are going to hold me to account and I wouldn't have it any other way."

Better parliament- guaranteed!

Well let's hope so, no matter who ends up governing, to be revealed later in the day.

The Agreement on Parliamentary Reform that the independents led by Rob Oakeshott negotiated with both major parties is a great win for parliament and parliamentarians in a battle for power that parliament has been losing since the emergence of the modern political party with the numbers to govern and an ironclad grip on the House of Representatives. We'll have to wait and see what the various deals, announced and unannounced amount to, and what happens in practice once the dust settles, but elements of the agreement of particular interest on the integrity, accountability and transparency front include:

Response to committee reports 

Required within six months (not sure if this is new) and the Minister to appear before the relevant Committee at the next reasonably available opportunity to answer questions. "Following this, issues of dispute between a Parliamentary Committee and an Executive will be referred to the Auditor-General for further follow-up, clarification, and attempted resolution". (Not sure how this fits with Labor's agreement with The Greens that would have the Information Commissioner arbitrate on public interest immunity claims.) "Timely response to committee reports to be included as a Key Performance indicator in employment arrangements of Agency Heads."

Parliamentary Budget Office

"A Parliamentary Budget Office be established, based in the Parliamentary Library, to provide independent costings, fiscal analysis and research to all members of parliament, especially non-government members."

Parliamentary Integrity Commissioner

"This commissioner would be supervised by the privileges committee from both House and Senate to provide advice, administration and reporting on parliamentary entitlements, investigate and make recommendations to the Privileges Committees on individual investigations, provide advice to parliamentarians on ethical issues and uphold the Parliamentary Code of Conduct and control and maintain the Government’s Lobbyists register." ( Let's hope this extends to new commitments to transparency and accountability for money spent by the parliamentary departments including on and by parliamentarians.)

Members Code of Conduct

"A cross-party working group and inquiry process will be established to draft a code of conduct for members of the House and the Senate. Once established, this code will be overseen by the Privileges committee." (This should include something about parliamentarians dealings with lobbyists.)

Register of Lobbyists

"Further enhancements to the Register of Lobbyists be examined, including to the online publication of the Register and to place the register under the supervision of the Parliamentary Integrity Commissioner."(The Register is already published online. It only covers third party lobbyists who seek to contact ministers and public servants. Extension to parliamentarians, enhancement of disclosure requirements, and enforcement mechanisms for standards of conduct is what is needed. I'm sure the tentativeness in this area owes nothing to the fact that Bruce Hawker and Grahame Morris have been advising the independents.)

 

Other "Better Government" Improvements

"It is expected, through the life of this Parliament, and with Private Members Bills now having the ability to be voted on, that there will be further steps taken to improve Government in the following way; Open and Accountable Government improvements; Further steps on improving democratic operation of the Parliament; Electoral Funding Improvements; Truth in Political Advertising improvements." (Yes, we live in hope.)

Integrity, accountability and transparency in the frame

The Labor Party - Greens Agreement "designed to establish a basis for stable and effective government" gets off to a great start, putting transparent and accountable government and improved process and integrity of parliament up there in lights as the first principles that underpin the deal.  For this reason, and acknowledging much of this is still general in nature, it's somewhat surprising that whistleblowers legislation, associated issues like draconian penalties for disclosure without authorisation, and a bigger leap forward than in the pipeline on Freedom of Information law or practice didn't get a run.

Transparency for parliament itself particularly for parliamentarians in the use of public money, and lobbyists only get a mention in connection with a welcome plan to appoint a Parliamentary Integrity Commissioner to "provide advice, administration and reporting on parliamentary entitlements to report to the Parliament" (sic), and to investigate and provide advice to parliamentarians on ethical issues; and to "uphold the Parliamentary Code of Conduct and to control and maintain the Government’s lobbyists register." (Let's hope we get a bit further than that on lobbying.)

Thanks to The Australian  read the ALP-Greens agreement in full .

There is plenty of good news. Here are other extracts that relate to integrity issues:

What a difference 14 days, and a hung parliament make

This post two weeks ago lamented the fact that governing differently or better hardly rated a mention in the election campaign. Here are extracts from the Prime Minister' address to the National Press Club  (posted by The Australian) today, on how improving democratic practices is now at the forefront of her thinking - although the detail of what she has in mind is yet to be revealed, beyond the independents and cross benchers. (Some emphasis added.)

Abbott, selfessly of course, embraces frank and fearless

TONY ABBOTT: This is very important Lyndal, because you know, our system depends on public servants being able to give free, frank and fearless advice to government and that means the advice has got to remain confidential.

And what we've got here is a desperate Prime Minister trashing the Westminster system in an attempt to hold onto power.

LYNDAL CURTIS: So you don't want that information released?

TONY ABBOTT: Well if, if, if the most confidential public service advice can be casually released just to help this government to hang onto power, I mean they are trashing the Westminster system in a desperate attempt to hold onto power...The conventions are there for a reason, they are there because if you are going to have efficient and effective government the public service has got to be able to give confidential advice...Now you just can't have this advice strewn around like confetti because you have a desperate government desperately trying to cling to power and in the process trashing the Westminster conventions. But what cannot happen, you cannot have the frank and fearless advice of the public service prejudiced by releasing it to people for whom it was never intended. I mean this completely undermines and compromises our whole system of government

And on it went as the Opposition leader on ABC radio AM this morning contributed to the big stakes argy bargy involved in seeking the numbers to govern. The independents have published seven points for the two main parties to consider before formal talks. The Opposition is resisting one demand, for Treasury costings of both party campaign policy commitments as Mr Abbott continues to refuse to give the over the full details because he claims Treasury's integrity was brought into question, as a result of a leak of one policy costing during the campaign. PDF posted by News Ltd: the full request for information


But on the issue of the centrality of confidentiality of advice to the future of the Westminster system, Mr Abbott is talking like some public servants, ironically Treasury Secretary Ken Henry, and head of the Prime Minister's department Terry Moran rather than a politician or someone who knows the legislative framework within which government  is supposed to operate.

Election cliff hanger sees good government in the frame

Who would have thought that good governance, accountability and transparency and doing something to improve the way parliament works would be back on the agenda, now that a small group of kingmakers in the House of Representatives get to decide who governs after the Federal election deadlock sees the major parties with a likely 73 seats apiece? These are some of the issues that matter to the likes of  independents such as Oakeshott and Windsor, now joined by Wilkie, and The Greens Bandt, the last named with plenty of sage advice from colleagues in the Senate who have always been on about such things, and will number nine from next July when joined by former NSW MLC Rhiannon who strongly pursued similar issues while in office there. Interesting times. 

Trust hard to win, easy to lose, the message for whoever wins the election

One of the Prime Minister's problems, given the circumstances in which she came to office, ALP woes at the state level in Queensland and NSW, and the fact that all politicians are starting from a low base, is said to be lack of public trust. According to Peter Hartcher in the Sydney Morning Herald, the PM has three strings to her bow in trying to deal with this issue, one of which involves listing her achievements as Education Minister including more transparency for school performance through the My School website.

It seems surprising that the Government hasn't been able or inclined to run up a broader list of achievements concerning honesty, integrity, openness, and accountability in government, with Senator Faulkner by the PM's side throughout. Maybe the judgment is that the record is not much to boast about, although in a couple of areas including modest proposals for change regarding  political donations, the Opposition is to blame for blocking legislation. That first term "high priority" Freedom of Information reform, is still months away from commencement, and perhaps publicly mentioning the Declaration of Open Government-no one has- issued by Finance Minister Tanner the day before the election was called might be be greeted with derision rather than acclaim.

Politicians should know trust takes a long time to build but is quickly and easily lost. Deeds speak louder than words. The Opposition also has plenty of baggage in this area. In the broader context of law reform and rights still relevant to this issue, Richard Ackland suggests " the Greens seem more open to interesting possibilities than big, old, tired drones from the political machines."

Governing differently or better hardly visible in Decision 2010

In an election campaign where the debate has mainly been about small item features of the country's future, there have been few references to a big picture of what the future could be. Leaders of the main parties haven't mentioned much about governing differently or better, apart from Prime Minister Gillard promising to reinstate proper cabinet processes, and Opposition leader Abbott momentarily channelling Kevin Rudd in saying (at the Rooty Hill Forum) he would not be overridden by colleagues in the cabinet room. That should be something! All those "grand visions" of governance for the future at the 2020 Summit are not worth a cracker apparently. The former Prime Minister's brother Greg Rudd offered a few sage words on the subject in The Australian on Friday:

We have lost our values. We have gone for the lowest common denominator in our national debate. It's all about what we don't like in people, what focus groups say, the numbers, personalities rather than good policy. Both sides of politics seem to believe that destroying or humiliating the other side somehow makes Australia a better place... The party system no longer achieves the best outcomes for Australia. Too many dumb, short-sighted and wasteful decisions are made all in the name of survival: survival to retain government, survival to gain government, survival to retain or gain individual political careers... Whoever wins on August 21, the system has to improve. Governing well is a very hard business. Many aspire to leadership but not many are sure what to do or how to do it once they get there. In the brief period remaining before election day, it would be nice if both leaders could tell us how they might improve the political system in Australia.

In June, before Kevin Rudd was rolled, and before  the campaign, Roy Morgan Research found Federal MPs ranked 23rd out of 30 professions surveyed for honesty and ethics. Politicians, like death and taxes will always be with us, and next Saturday will reflect our collective wisdom choosing from those on offer. None seem interested in a different or better approach to the practice of democracy, or governance generally. Would we believe them anyway?

Information access a whole - of - government change management challenge

Those thinking about, interested, or involved in change associated with access to government information - now a broad church across the country - will find much of value in the report "Information Policy and E-Governance in the Australian Government"( pdf 185kb) by Dr Ian Reinecke for the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

The report was completed in March, although the published version includes an update reference in July and has only recently been released. The Government 2.0 Taskforce clearly had its genesis here although neither Minister Ludwig nor Minister Tanner mentioned Reinecke's report in announcing its establishment in June, and nothing has been said publicly about what might be happening behind the scenes on its key message- the need to get cracking now. Reinecke himself was appointed to the Taskforce- more about him and the consultancy (I doubt this was $70000 for a week's work) here

While the sole focus of the report is the Federal Government, the problems, challenges and suggested responses are likely to be closely replicated in other jurisdictions where change is underway or on the way.

The report provides a look at international developments and the current state of play within the Government on information policy and technology. Reinecke illustrates that Australia badly lags comparable countries in recognising the opportunities to improve government-public dialogue through access to and sharing information. The Federal Government picture he paints isn't a pretty one: diverse information practices across government; disaggregated governance of information management policy; problems arising from split responsibilities for parts of the equation; absence of a co-ordinating lead agency and real clout for key agencies to make things happen; attitudes among public servants on disclosure and the use and reuse of information by the public that are mostly defensive or disinterested; and other limitations and constraints such as copyright and confusion about licensing options.

However Reinecke was heartened to find some innovators within government pushing the envelope by using new information tools and techniques, and an agency such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics embracing creative commons licensing. He and others he talked to see Freedom of Information reform particularly the establishment of the Office of Information Commissioner as an overdue measure. And the big opportunity to put information governance in its rightful place - central to good government.

Reinecke sets out a commendable scheme of what needs to be done, starting immediately to build momentum and helpfully, suggests priorities for the Information Commissioner, once established. He acknowledges that better governance in the information field is a whole -of -government change management exercise that will take time, as many within government remain unaware or unconvinced of the need for change or the benefits. He points out that the Commissioner will need strong support from public service colleagues and to bring in outside expertise, knowledge and experience.

A couple of important findings and observations from the report:

"Agencies’ interest in government information tends to cease at the point of creation; they do not see part of their role as putting that information to work outside government, although there is a sense that third parties may be better placed than they to do so. There is a real question about agency preparedness to make public sector information more widely available; in classifying information within government, there is a tendency to over-classify as a defensive measure. The argument for open access is not clearly understood. Making agency performance data publicly available may meet resistance from some Commonwealth agencies, even as they are seeking to persuade state jurisdictions to adopt and disclose performance metrics; there may also be caution about ‘unintended consequences’ e.g. parents withdrawing children from under-performing schools. Information management is seen by all agencies interviewed as distinct from managing the technology and some noted that there is a tendency of IT staff to resist more open communications instead of regarding ICT as an enabler of more open engagement between government and citizens.[5.6]

The general principle that recognises that the purpose for which an agency creates information is relevant to determining the terms on which it is released, is not clearly articulated across government.By the nature of what they do, the service delivery agencies bring to the issue of open access a higher level of recognition that close engagement with their customer base is essential and that online technologies present opportunities for innovation in that regard. They also recognise that the disproportionately higher volume of FOI requests they receive and the higher costs they incur responding to queries could be ameliorated by more proactive release of information. It is clear however that some agencies show little evidence of re-thinking their position on ensuring more open access to information and closer interactive engagement with individuals and communities online.[5.7]

There is a specific need to begin developing an Australian Government information policy that is appropriate to the digital world and which should make it easier to search for, discover and use government information. This will enable better access to public sector information in a form and on terms which are of greatest value to those who seek it.(6.1)

The major obstacle to introducing e-consultation in government is not technical; it is a cultural attachment by the public service and politicians to constrain the systematic sharing of information with citizens. To overcome that cultural reluctance, public service managers need a reason to change their behaviour and a process to do so.(7.7)

The intuitively appealing principle of governments being as open as possible to the citizens who elect them needs to be informed by a realistic assessment of the measures, functions and structures required to deliver that outcome. International experience, although not a perfect template for who does what in government to better manage information in Australia, is instructive.(8.1)

All part of the challenge for the Taskforce and the Information Commissioner, waiting out there somewhere.

Australian Parliament among weakest in the world

The long-time Clerk of the Senate Harry Evans, on the verge of retirement, reflected on the operation of our institution of representative democracy in Canberra on Friday in this address Time, Chance and Parliament Lessons from Forty Years.

The mainstream media doesn't find it interesting, with the Canberra Times the only paper reporting the speech.

For all the talk about reform and good governance, Evans says we "still have one of the weakest legislatures of the democratic world, especially compared with our great and powerful friends. The Parliament here is under a degree of executive domination that would not be tolerated elsewhere, even at Westminster."

And this on access to information, accountability and parliament generally:

"More than ever before, independence in the legislature depends on the ability to obtain information that governments would rather conceal. Knowledge has always been power, but the management of information has become the key to government. The executive wants the public to receive only the information favourable to it, and strives to manage the release and the presentation of unfavourable information, and to keep much secret. A functioning legislature is essentially an instrument for breaking down that information management in the interest of the public's ability to judge governments. It is in this role, however imperfectly, that the Senate, with its committee system and its culture of independence, has performed. At the 2020 Summit I suggested 20 parliamentary reforms, none of which was adopted by the government. Perhaps the most significant was for an independent body to finally determine government claims to keep information concealed from Parliament. It was the proposal most decisively rejected."

How about Evans, Independent candidate for the Senate at the next election?

On reflection he probably knows too much about it all and is sure to have other important things to do. Thanks Harry for a wonderful contribution to the Parliament including plenty of truth to power over 40 years.

Faulkner to the front line at Defence.

Minister of State and Cabinet Secretary Senator John Faulkner has been appointed Minister for Defence, so the open government, accountability and integrity causes lose a good steward, at least from direct carriage of the reform agenda. Defence on the other hand will need to get ready for a shift in gears.

While I have been a critic of the pace and scope of change in some areas such as Freedom of Information and lobbying, there was never any doubt about Faulkner's commitment and serious intent to bring about major changes in these and other fields. He leaves very big shoes-and a big and pressing agenda of unfinished business with FOI and privacy reform proposals still to go to Parliament- to be filled by a successor to be appointed by the Prime Minister in the next few days. Names of those with an interest, stature and clout to step up and push hard don't come readily to mind. As a senior minister I'm sure Faulkner will continue to be an important voice on these issues around the cabinet table.We wish him well- prepared to overlook entirely his admission that what he knew about blogs could be written on the back of an extremely small postage stamp.

Continuous disclosure a private sector concept for some NSW agency CEOs

The NSW Auditor General last week reported on a review of Corporate Governance Arrangements in Large Government Agencies and Universities based on the 17 measures used as reference points for ASX listed companies.The review covered 50 agencies and the 10 universities.

The conclusion was that "most agencies and universities surveyed have many of the 17 key governance components" with the Auditor General citing gaps in key stakeholder communication, continuous disclosure of performance, management sign-offs on the adequacy of internal controls, and managing compliance with laws and Government directions fraud control.

The findings on compliance with the continuous disclosure component illustrate the culture change challenge to open government that lies ahead in NSW. It's remarkable that the Auditor General felt the last two sentences needed to be said:

Some CEOs have suggested that continuous disclosure is purely a private sector concept and has no place in the public sector. Others are of the view that continuous disclosure is different in the public sector. I welcome this debate. Continuous disclosure in listed companies is about keeping the market informed of events and developments that a reasonable person would expect to have a material effect on the value of a company’s securities. The equivalent in the public sector would be a State Owned Corporation keeping the shareholder ministers advised of such events. At the very least, all government agencies should regularly keep the public aware of the ongoing performance against its key performance indicators. Importantly, the public expects to be kept fully informed on how well their taxes are being spent."

Goodbye to 2020 and all that

A couple of final thoughts on the 2020 Summit before all that enthusiasm and thousands of ideas disappear completely beneath the sand.

David McLennan in the Canberra Times (seriously) and Bruce Chapman in The Australian (amusingly) both highlight the problem of an over-ambitious plan to get 1000 people together for less than two days, with a blue sky agenda, in a process ultimately over engineered in the search for consensus. Poor preparatory material was also a clear weakness for mine, at least for the Governance discussion. Then there was the lacklustre government response a year after the event.

So what? Little gain but not much damage, you might say. Well for a government that came to office talking about the need to govern differently, The Age editorial on Friday cited this significant longer term impact:

"The attitude of both sides of politics presents a dispiriting contrast to the summit's bold vision of what kind of nation Australia should aspire to become by 2020. A year ago, summit co-chairman Glyn Davis said that, politically, "a government that ignored all of the views put forward by 1000 people would be taking a very high risk". The risk actually relates not only to the Government, but to Australians' perception of the worth of political engagement. If the summit briefly managed to get many people to suspend their cynicism about the political process, its lasting effect may unfortunately be to confirm the public's view that governments and politicians listen to the views of the community only when it suits them."

2020 vision suffers from near-sightedness

Reaction to the Government's response to the Final Report on last year's 2020 Summit seems to be somewhere between "underwhelmed" and "disappointed" as illustrated in these articles in Fairfax papers and The Australian, the Oz editorial and Mike Steketee's comments.

The response (The future of Australian governance - PDF 99KB) to the Governance chapter of the report includes a lot of the waffle Steketee refers to, not surprising, given the fact that much of the chapter lacked coherence, was repetitive, and included a lot of ideas that were trite and bordered on laughable as 2020 objectives.(See comments in June 2008).

Plans for moving on what the Report listed as the five priority themes for governance- the constitution, rights and responsibilities (an Australian Republic); a modern federation; collaborative governance; revolutionising the ways government and communities interact; parliamentary reform; and open and accountable government-vary from doing nothing (the Republic), to improving the way COAG works and a series of other small steps, and making a start on others, for example on Freedom of Information reform and discussion of a charter of rights. Some ideas- for example a culture change on disclosure, hardly a 2020 goal (I hope)- could have started a year or more ago if the Government had chosen to act.

The following, about community interaction and participation was a positive, but the wheels have been spinning in the Australian Government Information Management Office and elsewhere in government for years on e-governance, without much traction. Now the Prime Minister's Department is to have a go, but you hardly feel any sense of urgency:

" ..the Government is committed to developing practical initiatives in e-governance that increase communities’ ability to interact with the Parliament and the policy development processes of government. The Government is committed to making extensive information about policy issues available on-line to the community. The Government will develop better ways to increase interactive consultative processes using new technologies to communicate and hear from people. Some aspects of this work will be guided by the statutory Information Commissioner position (comment: sometime in 2010), which the Government will be establishing as part of its Open Government reform agenda. As a first step, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has sought expert advice(emphasis added) on the enhancement of information and access to Commonwealth information and policy and a whole-of-government approach to the development of an e-governance strategy. The Government is also considering (emphasis added) holding a set of forums that will bring together experts, business and community representatives and others with a strong interest in a number of topics to promote a collaborative approach to challenging issues and better inform government decision making."

Remember 2020?

Michelle Grattan seems to have been on the receiving end of a good leak in reporting about the Government's response to ideas put forward at last year's 2020 Summit- to be revealed in detail next week, long after the original commitment to respond by the end of last year. The score for the Governance Group's 184 ideas is " 90 taken forward, 43 considered further." The detail to come on Wednesday.

A-Span on our doorstep but 2020 Summit response now in the New Year.

Co-chairs of the 2020 Governance group John Hartigan and Maxine McKew

I thought maybe my memory was playing tricks, but no, the Prime Minister had committed in this media release on 31 May to a response to the Final Report of the 2020 Summit, held last April, by the end of 2008. So I had one eye out for this over the break. Not a thing, only to find this now on the 2020 website:

"The Government is considering all of the recommendations in the Final Report and will provide a response in the New Year."

But good news on one of the recommendations of the Summit Governance group that an Australian version of C-Span be established. A-SPAN- Australian public affairs television- will commence operations on pay tv and on-line on 20 January.The Prime Minister in launching A-Span in early December had some good things to say about the need to improve the way our democracy works:

".. A-Span will also be valuable for the wider public – students, for educators, for people following a particular policy debate, and for all Australians who want to understand more about how democracy works and how they could become more involved in it. A-Span is therefore good for Australian democracy. I think one of the charges we all face as those who participate in the workings and life of this great democratic institution is thinking of the generation ahead – how do you breathe life into it again? How do you actually sustain the arteries and the life force of a democracy? The debate about right to know, which John has been so intimately involved in, the debate about how we bring more meaningfully the deliberations of this place and the other legislatures of Australia, into the lives of Australians. I think each generation of politicians has a responsibility to make sure that the institutions are kept not just alive and well but reformed, reshaped, transmitted to those who come after us....

Australians will be able to see and understand our parliamentary processes more easily than ever before. A-Span will not just be a one-way process between Government and the Australian people, it will also give voice to many others in the public debate through its coverage of significant meetings held by major private institutions. That means a better educated public, a more informed public debate and stronger democracy. The Australian Government strongly supports new steps to strengthen our way of governing and to constantly reinvent the way in which the country is governed."

We'll all raise a glass to that.