US Sunshine Week promotes Freedom of Information

Thanks to Sunshine Week and the cartoonist M.e.Cohen

As mentioned here previously 11-17 March is Sunshine Week in the US.

There are media heavyweights such as Ben Bradlee of the Washington Post championing the public's right to know but at the regional and local level there are lots of strong advocates of why this issue matters to everyone in the community.

Sunshine week organisers have provided some great materials for use across the US including a great batch of cartoons. We particularly liked the one above which unfortunately has resonance just about everywhere.

Sunshine Week- a great idea still to hit our shores

It's that time of the year - well it is next week - when the US open government community, led and co-ordinated by the Association of Newspaper Editors and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press demonstrate the importance of open transparent government through Sunshine Week publicity and events.

I've been lamenting for years the absence here of a Knight Foundation to fund the start up, and a formidable team with a shared interest, prepared each year to invest time and resources to help build public awareness of the importance of the right to know. For everyone, not just the media.

 Three years ago, the coalition of media groups Australia's Right to Know organised a conference in Sydney on FOI reform, but hasn't repeated it. Or at any stage reached out to partners who might share an interest in open, participatory government. Despite the great name, ARTK's focus has been on media not citizen interests. And it's maintaining a very low profile - the last addition to published submissions on its website was in October 2009  and to the media releases list, in May 2010

By happenstance I'll be in Washington next week, attending a couple of events and renewing some contacts.

While the Queensland Information Commissioner has organised three Right to know days and the NSW Commissioner is talking about a Sydney event later this year, oh for a local equivalent of a group like these Sunshine Week partners:

American Library Association ♦ Association of Alternative Newsweeklies ♦ Association of American Editorial Cartoonists ♦ Center for Democracy & Technology ♦ Center for Public Integrity ♦ Center for Responsive Politics ♦ Collaboration on Government Secrecy ♦ Electronic Frontier Foundation ♦ First Amendment Center ♦ Investigative News Network ♦ League of Women Voters ♦ Media Law Resource Center ♦ National Association of Broadcasters ♦ National Conference of Editorial Writers ♦ National Freedom of Information Coalition ♦ National Newspaper Association ♦ National Press Club ♦ National Security Archive ♦ Newspaper Association of America ♦ OMB Watch ♦ Online News Association ♦ Openthegovernment.org ♦ Patch ♦ Project on Government Secrecy ♦ Project on Government Oversight ♦ Radio Television Digital News Association ♦ Society of Professional Journalists ♦ Student Press Law Center ♦ Sunlight Foundation ♦ Sunshine in Government Initiative

Sunshine Week sets a shining example.

Next week 15-21 March is Sunshine Week in the US- a media initiated annual national campaign designed to heighten public awareness of the importance of open government.This year one feature will be a report on surveys of the information states make available on the web, undertaken in association with the American Society of Newspaper Editors' Freedom of Information Committee, the National Freedom of Information Coalition, and the Society of Professional Journalists' FOI Committee.

The toolkit of terrific resources available free for use by media across the US includes opinion columns, editorial cartoons, informational graphics and public service ads for print and broadcast.

US media owners, publishers and journalists do a great job to build and maintain a constituency for open transparent government, in everyone's interests, by investing in initiatives to improve public understanding of the importance of these issues.This long-term highly professional effort to alert the public to their stake in all this is something the Australian media coalition, Australia's Right to Know, together with like-minded partners, should seek to emulate.The coalition will break new ground by holding a Free Speech Conference in Sydney on 24 March.It's a welcome development, but have a look at Sunshine Week's Calendar of Events and the range of activities and organisations involved- not a one-off either, but part of an ongoing investment of time, money and other resources, deemed worthwhile by the many participants, even in tough financial times.

You'll see some examples of the US materials accompany posts here next week.

We have sunshine, but no Sunshine Week

 Sunshine Week this week in the US, the annual national initiative led by the American Society of Newspaper Editors to promote a dialogue about the importance of open government and freedom of information. Participants include news media, civic groups, libraries, nonprofits, schools and others interested in the public's right to know. Here is a sample of the coverage and events.The Department of Justice got on board launching FOIA.gov with government wide data on FOI processing, including agencies with the biggest backlogs. The Knight Open Government Survey undertaken by the National Security Archives revealed a glass half full on implementation of President Obama's day one openness commitment and subsequent directive.

Would we had a philanthropist like the Knight Foundation to fund, and a coalition like the one behind Sunshine Week to support, a similar initiative here.

US Congress Shines for Sunshine Week

Courtesy of Sunshine Week and cartoonist Mick Luckovich

Apart from the big boost to public awareness of the importance of open government principles, Sunshine Week has also seen the passage of four bills by the US House of Representatives, including significant proposed changes to the Federal Freedom of Information Act.

Sunshine Week a shining example

It's Sunshine Week again in the US:

a national initiative to promote a dialogue about the importance of open government and freedom of information. Participants include news media, civic groups, libraries, nonprofits, schools and others interested in the public’s right to know. 

Terrific for them.

Having been there a year ago, here I am this time in Sydney green with envy at the leadership, enthusiasm, widespread participation and financial support from the Knight Foundation and others that makes this happen year after year.

And left to imagine how interesting some of these events listed for Washington will be as the week rolls on. 

Who, what, when, where and how could we ever make something like this happen here?

Sunshine week shines again

Across the US next week Americans will get to hear a lot about the importance of open government and freedom of information, as Sunshine Week, led by the American Society of Newspaper Editors, gets under way.

Now in its 3rd year it is designed to increase public awareness about the public's right to know what the government is doing and why, and to highlight excessive and unwarranted government secrecy. The resources available for use by print, radio and television are fantastic, including community service advertisements featuring prominent film stars, and opinion pieces by leading authorities.

The national scope of the initiative is illustrated by this list of those who picked up on the theme last year.

Let the sun shine in!

The American Society of Newspaper Editors has this week designated 12-18 March “Sunshine Week” to encourage dialogue about the importance of open government and Freedom of Information.

The project includes the release of research and a wide range of media initiatives. See here for results of a national poll which show that the public equates open government with effective democracy; and here for a selection of cartoons from across the US about secrecy in government and the importance of the right to know. The Governors of several states issued Sunshine Week proclamations.

I’m sure Australian newspaper editors share the enthusiasm for the topic even if this mightn’t run to a well funded, well managed national initiative designed to encourage discussion and debate about open government in practice.

Oh for an Aussie Sunshine week!

Sunshine Week in the US, so on St Patrick's Day no less, I'm green with envy at the  organisation, scope and range of activities to highlight the importance of access to public information funded by the Knight Foundation, Bloomberg, American Society of Newspaper Editors and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. This selection of resulting media coverage on day 2 turns the mind to what the same enthusiasm, enterprise and effort might achieve here. Alas...

Sunshine Week and the never-ending story

It's Sunshine Week in the US, again leaving those here who would like to see media organisations really step up to the plate on the public's right to know and why it's important, green with envy at the resources, professionalism and wide scope of and support for the initiative. The unfortunate news is the poll published there today that shows the public thinks government secrecy is as strong as ever.

The National Security Archive  has also published the result of an audit of agency compliance with President Obama's directive on openness.

The Obama administration "has clearly stated a new policy direction for open government but has not conquered the challenge of communicating and enforcing that message throughout the executive branch," the report concluded.

Those here faced with the same challenge should note what appears to have happened when the writtten directives were issued last year by the President and Attorney General to agencies to do things differently:

Some agencies (13 out of 90) implemented concrete changes in practice as a result of the memos; some (14 out of 90) have made changes in staff training; and still others (11 out of 90)  have merely circulated and discussed the memos. The remaining agencies (52) either told the Archive that they have no records that demonstrate how they implemented the Obama and Holder Memos or did not respond at all to the FOIA request.

Update:The White House commented in this New York Times report on the audit:

"The White House, however, took issue with the group’s methodology and said that the administration had made clear progress in turning around an executive branch that is often averse to public disclosures. “What we have done this year is to build the infrastructure to build a lasting change,” Norm Eisen, the special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform, said Sunday.

“It’s not enough for us to make initial, strong pronouncements. How do you really turn the battleship to achieve a lasting impact?” he asked. He said that throughout the executive branch, public information officers “are really trying to turn that battleship, and the initial returns are positive,” with more documents being released in the last year under Freedom of Information Act, or F.O.I.A., requests. But “there’s much more to do” and it will probably take another year before the changes are fully seen, he added. Even so, he said that the White House’s early data suggested more reason for optimism than the National Security Archive report in tracking progress under the Freedom of Information Act.".. The administration planned to release a broader report on government openness next month.."

Sunshine Week in the US-loads of activism, a hint for the PM

It's that time of the year again with panel discussions, workshops and other events about using and understanding the latest developments in freedom of information resources.

Prime Minister Abbott, still scratching around to get going with that "good government starts today" plan of a month ago might find a clue in the subtheme:

Sunshine Week

Open government
is good government

March 15-21, 2015

As we said last year "Let the sun shine in"

Media interest in, and support for better FOI laws is evidenced in the US through active participation in advocacy and public education about open government principles.

One of the flagship initiatives is Sunshine Week led by the American Society of Newspaper Editors. This year it's from 11-17 March and includes activities, and a lot of media stories about Freedom of Information and associated issues.

This year's honorary chairs are Ben Bradlee of Washington Post fame, Tom Brokaw the former anchor of NBC nightly news, and Judy Woodruff who you see regularly on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer (5 p.m. SBS TV).

Support from these media heavyweights and a year round organisational effort, means that Sushine Week and the principles it supports, get noticed right across the media chain.

The Week is funded by a grant from the Knight Foundation (started by the founders of what is now the Knight Ridder group of newspapers). The Foundation itself was funded by money left by members of the Knight family for initiatives to "seed and inspire great journalism everywhere, and to build strong communities in the cities and towns" where it ran newspapers.

Two legacies left by members of the Knight family totalled over $600million.

Any takers here?

I've previously lamented the fact that the Australian media to date (the Australian Press Council and other umbrella groups in particular) haven't recognised the value of combined effort to get open government on the agenda in this country.

National Information Law Conference Canberra March 2011

Information law, a topic probably still not taught as such in many Australian law schools, has arrived with the National Information Law Conference organised by Australian Government Solicitors' to be held in Canberra in March. It's a good thing that the field now gets this recognition and the program of Australian and overseas speakers sounds interesting and attractive. But spread over three week days and at $1500 per head (plus $100 for the Conference Dinner) there are limits on who has the time and money to share the wisdom beyond the public services and others who can get three days off work, with an employer prepared to foot the bill (plus travel and accommodation for those who don't live there.) I don't expect there will be too many self employed, community activists, NGOs, journalists and academics on tight budgets (other than the couple listed to speak) or just interested citizens in attendance.

A big law conference like this and the yawning gap in the Australian conference calendar of non-legal events about  the lie of the land regarding public information, open government, information rights, relations between government and the populace, public participation etc demonstrates one of our problems in the FOI area: that it is seen too frequently inside government and out as lawyers' business.

The different beast we don't see here (yet, he says hopefully) is something along the lines of the one day 13th annual National Freedom of Information Day Conference  that will be held in Washington DC a week earlier than the Canberra gathering:

"Hosted each year by the First Amendment Center, the conference brings together open records advocates, government officials, judges, lawyers, librarians, journalists, educators and others to discuss timely issues related to transparency in government and public access to official records. The program is conducted in partnership with the American Library Association, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, OMB Watch, OpenTheGovernment.org, and The National Security Archive at George Washington University; and in cooperation with the annual "Sunshine Week" initiative sponsored by the American Society of News Editors."

The conference is a full day of panel discussions and presentations-and here' the rub: there is no charge to attend.

We have a lot to learn about how to to build and sustain a community of interest around the  topic.

US FOI gongs for champion, and dud agency

Two awards coinciding with US Sunshine Week are worth a mention.

The National Security Archive at George Washington University announced that the US Air Force had been "awarded" this year's Rosemary Award for the worst Freedom of Information Act performance by a Federal agency.

The award is named after Rosemary Woods, President Nixon’s secretary who testified in 1974, that a backwards-leaning stretch while seated at her desk resulted in the “inadvertent” erasure of eighteen and a half minutes from the audio tape of a key Watergate conversation in the President’s White House office.

The Air Force, according to a US District Court finding last year, had failed miserably to meet FOI Act deadlines, had 139 broken links on its FOIA websites and had lost various records while processing requests.

A fax number for one Air Force component listed on the Air Force FOI website as the place to send requests was not a fax number at all - it was the phone number for a patient room in a base hospital at Wright Patterson Air Base in Ohio.

On a more positive note: The American Library Association's James Madison Award for those who "have championed, protected and promoted public access to information and the public's right to know", was awarded to Paul McMasters, the first Executive Director of The First Amendment Center and who was instrumental in establishing the annual FOI Day Conference.

While we don't have Australian equivalents, feel free to nominate an FOI champion or FOI laggard.

We could call our Rosemary, "The Alexander", after Alexander Downer, Australia's Foreign Minister, who vigorously claimed "we knew nothing" despite the fact that 35 separate messages were received by his Department alerting the Government to accusations that the Australian Wheat Board had paid bribes to Saddam Hussein's government, contrary to the UN sanctions.

Australia makes news at US National Freedom of Information Day Conference

But it wasn't for any great freedom of information accomplishment. On the contrary we together with other countries involved in negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership copped quite a serve over the lack of transparency.

Last Friday at the Sunshine Week conference I attended in Washington, Lori Wallach of Public Citizen Trade Watch, recently returned from observing the 11th round of negotiations in Melbourne on the TPP trade agreement spoke to her just published article  in the March edition of American Prospect. Wallach said "unprecedented secrecy" surrounds the draft texts under discussion, quoting former US trade official Gary Horlick as saying it "is the least transparent trade negotiation I have ever seen" in his 40 years in the game. Wallach contends the negotiation has been misbranded as "trade": the 26 proposed TPP chapters

 "include domestic policy on financial, health-care, energy, telecommunications, and other service-sector regulation; patents and copyrights; food and product standards; land use and natural resources; professional licensing and immigration; and government procurement."

Wallach said decisions are being taken without public access to any documents or details or, in the US case, input from members of Congress serving on key committees whose jurisdiction is directly implicated. And that the governments involved have ignored a global “release the texts” campaign led by unions and civil-society groups. However more than 600 business representatives serving as official U.S. trade advisers have full access to an array of draft texts and an inside role in the process. "The strategy is to squelch informed debate until a deal is signed and any alterations become difficult."

Wallach's talk prompted a look at other materials. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website confirms that it is no secret that the TPP will involve more than trade (emphasis added):

The Australian Government will pursue a TPP outcome that eliminates or at least substantially reduces barriers to trade and investment. The TPP is more than a traditional trade agreement; it will also deal with behind-the-border impediments to trade and investment.

This report from another observer at the Melbourne negotiations puts Australia up there leading on the confidentiality issue-and avoiding rather than answering questions:

The Australian chief negotiator opened the briefing with a statement of the chapters which had made progress during the round. Intellectual Property was not mentioned as one of these chapters, though market access, services, rules of origin and capacity building were amongst those specifically mentioned. He stated that there were more than 20 negotiating groups.

As usual, very few substantive questions were answered. Some procedural questions also went unanswered.

The first question came in the form of request for greater transparency, including the release of the text, in order to permit the general public to be part of the process. The Australian chief negotiator stated that the stakeholder forum provides the primary way for stakeholders to participate and it is common practice not to release texts during negotiations of free trade agreements. He suggested that releasing the text would not be feasible because "nothing is agreed until it is agreed."

A later question regarding the release of the text came when one stakeholder asked if the TPPA negotiating parties would consider a release after a composite text had been reached as is done at the WTO. The Australian chief negotiator repeated that in his view, the answer had already been clearly stated, that this is not the WTO and they would not release the text.

When asked whether all countries had finished tabling their IP text and whether the US specifically had tabled its text (marked as "placeholder" text in the prior leaks) on biologics, the length of the access window, internet retransmission and copyright limitations and exceptions, the Australian negotiator immediately responded that they would not release text. When pressed to answer simply whether specific text had been tabled or not, Barbara Weisel, US chief negotiator, did not clearly answer the question but seemed to indicate that such text had not been tabled yet. She noted that USTR is still consulting with stakeholders regarding some provisions, presumably on biologics and the length of the access window.

I don't know what relevant FOI activity has been undertaken. Participants have sought to head things off at the pass with this agreement on confidentiality to apply for four years, with NZ  acting as the organiser in chief:

First, all participants agree that the negotiating texts, proposals of each Government, accompanying explanatory material, emails related to the substance of the negotiations, and other information exchanged in the context of the negotiations, is provided and will be held in confidence, unless each participant involved in a communication subsequently agrees to its release. This means that the documents may be provided only to (1) government officials or (2) persons outside government who participate in that government’s domestic consultation process and who have a need to review or be advised of the information in these documents. Anyone given access to the documents will be alerted that they cannot share the documents with people not authorized to see them. All participants plan to hold these documents in confidence for four years after entry into force of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, or if no agreement enters into force, for four years after the last round of negotiations. Second, while the negotiating documents are confidential, each participant may mail, e-mail, fax, or discuss these documents over unsecured lines with the groups of people mentioned above (i.e., government officials and persons who participate in the domestic consultation process). The participants may also store these documents in a locked file cabinet or within a secured building; that is, the documents do not need to be stored in safes. Each participant can also create and store these documents on unclassified computer systems. Lastly, the participants will mark the documents they create in a manner that makes clear that the documents will be held in confidence.The policy underlying this approach is to maintain the confidentiality of documents, while at the same time allowing the participants to develop their negotiating positions and communicate internally and with each other. We look forward to your confirmation that you agree with this approach.

In answer to a question, Wallach said Peru's FOI law offers the best chance of some access to TPP documents and a court case there is underway.

Transparency flag flying in the US as well.

Of course it's not just NSW where the call has gone out for more openness and transparency.Here, from Sunshine Week, is a list of, and links to, some of the voices urging improvement in the US, on the eve of Presidential and other election contests on 4 November.

Major parties in NSW election quiet about the problem of influence peddlers

Courtesy of Sunshine Week 2006

Another transparency related topic that neither of the major political parties has mentioned in the NSW election campaign to date, is the issue of lobbyists and access to information about who they are, who they talk to, and what they talk about.

The Burke affair in Western Australia, and the tentacles that have reached to Canberra have put the issue on the agenda there. Both the Western Australian and Victorian Governments are in the process of considering a lobby registration scheme, in the latter case with pressure from The Greens and others.

The major parties in NSW don't appear to be interested, although not surprisingly it is a topic that The Greens, Australian Democrats and independent candidates are concerned about.

The Premier, in January last year issued "Guidelines for ministers, ministerial staff and public officials in dealing with lobbyists". However the guidelines only relate to lobbying in respect to a decision "proposed to be made under statute where the decision maker is required to adhere to the principles of administrative law", and are weak in many respects. For example, as pointed out in this editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald ("Shining a light on the lobbyists") ministers are only required to "consider" keeping records of meetings with lobbyists.

Statutory decisions are of course important, and should be made honestly, without bias, and on the basis of proper considerations. But what about lobbying of ministers, ministerial staff and public servants on other issues such as the expenditure of large amounts of public money, and even bigger decisions they make concerning economic, social and environmental matters where individual or sectoral interests stand to gain? Shouldn't we have clear rules about attempts to exercise influence over these decisions, and don't we have a right to know who speaks to who about what?

Radio National's "The National Interest" last Sunday discussed issues about reform and regulation of the lobbying industry. One of the guests, Duff Conacher of Canada's Democracy Watch, spoke about the Canadian Federal system which not only requires registration of lobbyists and continuous disclosure (on the web) of contacts with politicians and public servants, but bans ministers and senior public servants from any involvement in lobbying for 5 years after they leave office. The Federal Opposition has said it will introduce a register, but the Government has dismissed this as unnecessary.

It looks like both our major NSW political parties prefer to leave a blank space rather than a commitment to reform of lobbying activity as the starting point for their time in office come 24 March.

We are all entitled to expect more.

Sunshine and rain on Right to Know Day

Right to Know Day 28 September- great to see traffic on the twitter feeds including plenty from Australia at #RighttoKnow

While observance has been trending in the right direction in recent years, its another step in the right direction given Right to Know Day often passed virtually unnoticed here.

Something positive from the highest levels of government on the importance of the right to know would be a welcome development but alas..

So too, with three ministers in New York last week, an Australian presence at the Fifth Anniversary Celebration of the Open Government Partnership would have indicated strong interest and commitment as well.

Alas again....

Further rain amid the sunshine:
 The Center for Law and Democracy in Toronto and Access Info Europe used the occasion to publish an updated Global Right to Information Rating, analysing the quality of the world's access to information laws.

The Australian legislative framework (the Federal Freedom of Information Act) comes in 56 of 111 rated, down four places since the previous assessment.

Mexico tops the list, and of particular interest UK 33, NZ 40, Canada 48 and USA 55.

Among the eye raisers, Russia 34, China 80, Japan 90, France 94, Germany 105 and Austria 111.

You can quibble with some of the scoring in the Australian assessment where we receive 83 points of a possible 150-in a few areas the assessor in my opinion has been off the money -  but  overall the act, hailed in its time in 1982 as up there with the best, is no better these days on these criteria than middle of the pack.

That's before attention to matters beyond the scope of the rating including

• outdated features of the act that reflect the 70s rather than the twenty teens, for example one of many, Section 17,

• recommendations to address weaknesses and enhance the law and practice arising from reviews including the Hawke report , the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Australian Information Commissioner (and loads more suggestions from outside government),

• the Office of Australian Information Commissioner first under threat of closure, then the government's failure to fill positions established by Parliament or fully fund the FOI watchdog role and the office information policy functions,

• the 'tone at the top'  as a result of the absence of positive leadership and support for transparent accountable government at the same time as senior public servants speak out critical of the law generally ('very pernicious') and about its impact on their capacity to do their job, 

• the interpretation and practical application of the law in some agencies that give rise to the epithet 'freedom from' rather than 'freedom of' information. Sarah Gill of The Age on Fairfax Media yesterday in "Have we reached peak secrecy?" pulled together some examples, arguing

"Despite the Turnbull government's professed enthusiasm for transparency and accountability, (ie membership of the OGP) this year – marked by a shroud of secrecy over border protection, the targeting of whistleblowers, and the intransigence of the Attorney-General around the release of his diary – could well be the low point for open government in Australia since Freedom of Information laws were introduced three decades ago."

Andrew Dyson SMH

Peak Secrecy? Give hope a chance?
Despite the validity of the examples cited and others that could be added, there are plenty of contenders for the 'peak secrecy' award over the last thirty years that IMO, would beat out the 15 months of the Turnbull era on display so far. The implacable attachment to the conclusive ministerial certificate during the Howard years and the eleven years it managed to ignore any positive reform for example.

As I commented at the six month mark, the record of the Turnbull government suggests hope as well as disappointment.

Six months on, membership of the Open Government Partnership, the yet to be completed National Action Plan of commitments to reform, and the Prime Minister's endorsement of the goals of the OGP as consistent with "Australia's long and proud tradition of open and transparent government" gives hope some chance.

MPs and opaque arrangements about expenditure of public money

The NSW Remuneration Tribunal last week issued the 2009 Annual Report and Determination of Additional Entitlements for Members of the Parliament of NSW. I'm all in favour of paying parliamentarians properly as recommended by an independent body but we badly need more sunshine about what goes here, despite the Tribunal's commendation of some recent initiatives to improve accountability.

For example how much of the electoral allowance (now ranging from $39950 to$82095 depending on the size of the electorate) each member spends, on what. NSW parliamentarians, like their Federal counterparts may pocket any unspent electoral allowance with the only issue one between the member and the Australian Taxation Office.The Determination tells us one submission received by the Tribunal suggested any unspent portion of the allowance should be returned to the Consolidated Fund rather than being retained by Members, but alas any such change, the Tribunal says, would be outside its powers and require legislative change.

Payments to members are subject to audit but no information about the expenditure of this or other allowances paid to individual members- Logistic Support Allocation, Electorate Charter Transport reimbursement, Committee Allowance, Electoral Mailout Allowance- or expenditure on other entitlements is publicly available from the Parliament. Not even the rule book that Parliamentary Joint Services uses for payments is on Parliament's website. But you can glean a little from the Tribunal Determination.

The Tribunal, at the request of the Presiding Officers, ruled out the use of the LSA to purchase promotional products for constituents such as "fridge magnets, notepads, shopping lists, key rings and pens." No moat cleaning revealed here, but what else is claimed only the Tax office will ever know.

Then there is the Sydney Allowance for members whose nominated place of residence is outside Sydney. It has been modestly increased (by $6) to $246 per night. The Determination tells us that everyone from a backbencher to a minister eligible for the allowance can choose to receive pay as you go payments or a lump sum, in the case of a minister and a few others, 180 nights worth ($44280). Members are to retain some proof they stayed overnight, but no details of expenditure are required. If they choose pay as you go they are entitled to additional payments over the limit on proof of expenditure. The Determination says the payments are meant to provide for long-term accommodation and I wouldn't want to condemn these worthy souls to life in a hotel room but the quid pro quo for nice round sums like $44000 should be publicly available details of where and on what the money goes.

Members of parliament also get money in the LSA to directly employ two or three people in their electoral office at public expense.The Determination even refers to payments to an approved relative. But nothing is publicly available about who is on each of their payrolls.

Is Tasmania unique where newly appointed parliamentary secretary Allison Ritchie resigned from that position and parliament last week after it was revealed she employed her mother, two sisters and her brother-in-law in her office, touching off debate there about the need for some rules about all this?

The legislative branch of government in NSW (which will spend over$100 million on Members Support this year) and everywhere else in the country drags the chain when it comes to open and transparent government. All are outside the scope of freedom of information laws and the parliamentarians themselves, with a few notable exceptions such as The NSW Greens' Lee Rhiannon show no interest in lifting the game on their own volition.

Sunshine solution for hospital infections

The Australian Health Insurance Association Conference heard this week that the publication of hospital results spurred better care and lowered costs. There is strong evidence from the US at least, that release of detailed hospital-acquired infection figures would reduce the frequency of infections.

According to this report in today's Sydney Morning Herald, it's all led the Health Minister, Tony Abbott, to float the idea of a score card rating for public hospitals, and performance reports "to end the official secrecy which shrouds problems in hospitals".

Can't beat that sunshine.

Apparently in some states, hospital waiting list details still aren't routinely released. It might still be a big step to get even more detail about what is going on in the health system.