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.

2020 Summit Final Report

The Final Report of the 2020 Summit was released (without fanfare-not even a media release on the PM's website although some media report comments) on Saturday and is available in a number of formats. The report-all 399 pages- was prepared by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet from the notes of scribes who recorded discussions of the 10 groups.The introduction says the report" will assist the policy development process by describing the discussions and outlining the many ideas generated at the summit.... This report also seeks to present the ideas in accordance with the priorities given to them by the stream participants in the discussion and debates at the summit." The Prime Minister has undertaken to respond by the end of the year.(Postscript: the PM's media release did appear and is here)

What to make of the Governance chapter? Well the five priority themes- constitution, rights and responsibilities(an Australian Republic); create a modern federation; collaborative governance: revolutionise the ways government and communities interact; parliamentary reform and open and accountable government-and the top ideas to move ahead on fundamental change in these areas mostly make sense. There are good ideas about improved access to government information, better use of technology to enhance democratic practices such as citizen involvement in decision making, and making parliament more effective. Many ideas-for example a culture change on disclosure- could start tomorrow if the government chose to act.

Overall the Governance chapter lacks coherence, is repetitive, and provides little guidance on the weight that should be given to many ideas, some of which are trite and border on laughable as 2020 objectives. Most of us have spent plenty of time in sessions like this where a lot of stuff ends up on paper around the walls of a room, meant to capture what has been discussed. Someone then has to make sense of it all producing an account that often surprises participants because of its apparent logic and wisdom, while still satisfying them that all the important things have been captured for posterity .Whoever put together the reports on The future of the Australian economy, and Australia's future security and prosperity in a rapidly changing region and world, to cite two other group reports, are dab hands at this. However the Governance report seems to consist largely of what went up on the wall. At times I wondered whether anyone had given the chapter a close read before it was released.

Some examples:

• On Parliamentary Reform one of the "ideas"is that"the government(should) instruct the Australian Public Service that it has a duty to cooperate with the Parliament."If there are any doubts we need to get this sorted well before 2020.It not only makes it into the top ideas section-its there twice (9.11.3 and 9.12.3).
• On Open and Accountable Government, one idea (9.17.1) is that we should reform the current freedom of information system through "legislating through the Electoral Act." I'm mystified.
• On the same topic a recommendation on a charter of free speech (9.18) lists five matters to be addressed. Three of the five use different language to recommend the same thing- shield laws for journalists.

There follow pages and pages(40 in fact) of other "ideas" and a record of discussion in small group and plenary sessions that will test even the most interested reader. Just a few gems that should have had a little rework after they went up on the wall:

• Reform the public sector including "expedite issues of remuneration, flexibility and mobility"and "develop a citizen-or-community-focused public service and system that supports that"(9.64.3). Que?
• Parliamentary sittings moving around the country (9.70)
• By 2020 a national planning framework to......"develop an agreed future of Australia"(9.94.2) and"establish an agreed policy position, including principles, to facilitate outcome-based decision making"(9.94.8)
• "The Constitution was written by a bunch of morons in Melbourne and was never discussed with aboriginal people.It is therefore invalid"....."The Constitution needs to reflect the outcome of what the public wants.Public administration and the constitution are closely aligned"....There needs to be a reintegration of parliament".(page 319)
• "...The idea of subsidiary? The idea we should have a bias against decentralisation?"..."Politicians should be accountable if they mislead the government" (page 320).For the words in italics read subsidiarity and parliament, I think.

I gave it away after page 325, with 26 pages to go, after I caught sight of this "idea":"Elimination of jargon in governance and bureaucracy: there is too much jargon in bureaucracy and government documents which is obfuscatory. There is a need for clear writing, thinking and speaking".

Hear, hear.Who is going to tell the Prime Minister?

Good luck to the policy makers as they sift through all this.
Future of Governance.PDF 370KB
Future of Economy PDF 386KB
Australia's Future Security PDF 425KB

When does the future start?

The fact that Minister of State John Faulkner spoke to the Governance group at last month's 2020 Summit was well known, but I hadn't been aware that the text was published on his website.

His remarks again give cause for optimism that the Government will act on transparency and accountability issues, including Freedom of Information reform. It's just when, the detail about what, and the rather strange belief that you can keep talking about culture change(as in promoting a ‘pro-disclosure’ culture in government), when there are no visible signs this is happening. Instead we have the Treasurer still telling us, five months on, that what happens in Treasury on this front is nothing to do with him.

The Rudd Government would have been well advised to have put the message out on 3 December that the future starts now.

Action needed to match Canberra's FOI rhetoric with applicant's reality

In an article today in the Sydney Morning Herald, I comment on a recent decision in the Federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal, upholding an exemption claim under the Freedom of Information Act for a four year old report on a major policy initiative by a working group of senior public servants, and how this sits uncomfortably alongside the mood of the 2020 Summit "for a more vibrant democracy through increased public participation in the operation of our democratic institutions, and more open, accountable government." It concludes

"If the Rudd Government is interested in encouraging greater public participation in government decision-making, it needs to do something about an act that accommodates such decisions, and about the attitudes to disclosure by agencies such as Treasury inclined to grab onto an exemption claim just because they can."

Rick Snell in The Australian also comments about Canberra's FOI record:

"Five months have now passed since the federal election. In that period the federal Government has made all the right noises, a few important symbolic changes and delivered the right rhetoric but appears to have changed little in the way of actual practice of FOI at the commonwealth level.

The Australian Law Reform Commission has sought new terms of reference to carry out a full scale review of federal FOI legislation and practice. Yet surprisingly for a government keen to announce an inquiry at almost every press conference, the ALRC has been kept spinning its wheels waiting a response.

In November or December last year, Rudd should have said in his best pragmatic Queensland voice, "Go for it".

There was much talk at the 2020 Summit of the need for collaborative government. Yet such collaboration requires the two-way flow of information between governments and citizens bereft of spin and the willingness to modify proposals or admit to error and oversight in policy development.

This two-way flow of information can and should work without FOI. However, FOI is needed to ensure that it happens not just for the easy problems but also for the most contentious and difficult issues."

NSW Ombudsman acts to review FOI Act

The NSW Ombudsman has announced today a comprehensive review of the Freedom of Information Act, which will cover not only the provisions of an act which he describes as dated, complex and difficult,but also its day to day implementation to identify what works well and what could be improved.

So, first, this is good news.

It comes 17 years after the then Ombudsman first called for a review of this kind, a call repeated at regular intervals by those who followed him in office since. All NSW governments have remained unmoved on the issue of review and reform during this time.The announcement comes seven months after the Premier, Morris Iemma was asked in Parliament what he intended to do in the light of the Ombudsman's call for review in last year's annual report.Five months later he said the head of his department would have a chat with the Ombudsman. Nothing has been heard from him since. The Ombudsman appears to have decided, finally, enough is enough

Then on the down side.The review process is likely to take a year or so, giving the Government a convenient way of avoiding doing anything in this area until it is completed. In the absence of even the slightest acknowledgment by the Premier of the need for change, the Government will have complete discretion on what, if anything it will do in response to the findings. And as is the way with these things, the Government may take months or years to respond in any event.

It could all be very different if the Premier indicated his intention to put NSW at the forefront in enhancing democratic practices in Australia and made a commitment to open, transparent and accountable government, with a modern FOI Act that recognised and guaranteed the right of access to information, unless some demonstrable harm would result from disclosure.

If that was where he wanted to go, a short sharp review of the kind commissioned by the Queensland Premier last year, or the Ombudsman and a small group of others, would only take a few months to tell him how to get there.

The Premier and the Premier of Queensland were both at the 2020 Summit in Canberra last weekend. Both would have heard that fundamental changes in FOI were high on the list of changes needed in governance. The Queensland Premier has indicated she intends to keep in touch with those from Queensland who attended -one of her particular interests? Their input on freedom of information.

Now there's an idea Mr Iemma.

Bartlett directory of 2020 commentariat

The blogosphere has been buzzing with comment from participants and others on the 2020 Summit.Senator Andrew Bartlett has put together this useful list, with links.

Morning after reflections on 2020 Summit

Assessments of the 2020 Summit seem mostly positive and realistic about what results when you lock a lot of people in a room for a relatively short time and tell them "discuss" the major challenges facing the nation.But there are also plenty of naysayers as well.

Two pieces of particular interest:David Marr in the Sydney Morning Herald provides some colour on the way things went in the Governance group, making sense of that reference to grumpyness yesterday . Brad Norrington in The Australian gives some additional details of issues covered that included shield laws, whistleblower protection and political party funding.

We shouldn't be satisfied with the assurance that the Government will respond by the end of the year to suggestions on improving openness and transparency, and increasing public participation in government affairs.

Prompt action by the Government on Freedom of Information reform should be seen as low hanging fruit-easy pickings for those who spoke loud and often before the election about what needs to be done to address an enduring culture of excessive secrecy in some government agencies,and a myriad of other problems with the law and the way it has been implemented.

The Initial Report published yesterday urged state governments, all represented by their leaders ,to also take on board the ideas that emerged. None of the states (other than Queensland) have shown much interest in fundamental reform on FOI and related issues.

We live in hope.

Tell them about FOI in NSW, it's a great story(not)

I think I saw NSW Premier Morris Iemma sitting in the backrow in the Health group at the 2020 summit, as might befit the former Minister for Health in NSW,and someone rightly concerned about the crisis in the public health system in NSW.

Did his path cross with David Marr in the Governance group who said on Saturday that this comment in the folder sent to him by the Premier put him over the edge when it came to responding to the Premier's urging to represent NSW interests at the Summit. Could have been an interesting chat over morning tea:

"But what killed any ambition to represent NSW is Iemma's spruiking for the state's wretched FOI regime. "Since its introduction in 1989, the Freedom of Information Act has contributed significantly to the openness and accountability of Government. The act continues to perform that function, and its operation is continually subject to scrutiny and review …"

Mostly smiles as 2020 Summit wraps up

Lots of optimism, as well as ideas from the final session of the 2020 Summit just completed. I'm sure there are also tales of disappointment and frustration that we will also get to hear about soon enough.One participant told Peter Mares on Radio National today there were a lot of grumpy people in the Governance group yesterday, and the scuttlebutt was that it was proving to be the most difficult of the 10, but things had improved this morning .

The Summit has given a boost to the idea that we can and must do a lot better in many fields. Improving the way government works was a central theme.

As the Prime Minister said in his opening address:

"What we are looking for from this Summit are new directions for our nation’s future.And if we succeed, what we are looking for is also new insights into how we can govern Australia, a new way of governing our nation.Because the old way of governing has long been creaking and groaning.Often a triumph of the short term over the long term.Often a triumph of the trivial over the substantial.Often a triumph of the partisan over the positive.And the truth is all sides of politics, Brendan’s and mine, we are both guilty of this.It is time we started to try and turn a page."

Many of the reports from the 10 groups referred to a theme familiar to anyone who has worked in or around government:the need to recognise and deal more effectively with issues that cross departmental or federal -state boundaries- Tony Blair had a crack at it with his "joined up government". Easier said than done, human nature and the ways of bureaucracy being what they are.

The Initial report of the groups was posted immediately on the 2020 website and a more detailed report is to follow in a couple of weeks. The PM encouraged participants and the rest of us to use the site to join in the ongoing discussion ,and promised a reaction to all the ideas by the end of the year

John Hartigan , the group co-chair said Governance came up with about 200 ideas.The published report lists only the biggies: a republic, more opportunity for community interaction with government including through the web, a bill or charter of rights, a standing commission of experts to focus on making the Federation and federal -state agreements work better, automatic enrollment of voters, a preamble to the constitution recognising first peoples custodianship.

And open and accountable government including a completely revised freedom of information act.

Much of what needs to be done to start the change process in this area is well known and understood.Mr Rudd said as much before the election. How about it Minister of State Faulkner? Something simple, for example like telling the Treasury and other government agencies that those like Brent Fisse mentioned here a few days ago should not have to run a gauntlet of technical legal arguments when they seek to better understand the background on important new policy proposals of great public significance.

The Initial Report, with the Governance Section on pages 32-34 is here PDF 825KB

Just how interested are you in 2020?

This could sort the sheep from the goats-there will be live streaming for some sessions of the 2020 Summit(but from the look of things not the Governance group)from here over the weekend, and television coverage from ABC1 and ABC2.All 8000+submissions were sent to participants over the last few days, so that that must have been fun.Look forward to the fruit of collective wisdom about the nation's future over the next couple of days.

Treasury proves it's still a 'closed shop'

Just as participants in the 2020 Summit start to gather to discuss among other things "how best to implement an effective agenda of open government", and "how best to engage the community in government decision making", along comes a timely reminder of some of the obstacles to achieving these objectives.

The Deputy President of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal, Professor Walker, in Fisse and Department of Treasury has found that a report, now four years old, on the legal and policy issues associated with the introduction of criminal offences for cartel behaviour prepared by a working party of government officials, was exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. This despite evidence from the applicant , an expert on competition law and two other highly respected authorities in this field, that the report was of central public significance to the business community, the legal profession and academics, and that the failure to disclose it would impede informed public debate and academic research on an issue that is controversial and still under consideration.

However the Treasury successfully argued that the executive summary of the report was exempt as a copy of a document prepared for submission to cabinet; and the full report(other than factual information released to the applicant) was exempt as an internal working document, on the grounds that it contained advice and recommendations, the disclosure of which would be contrary to the public interest.

The executive summary had been attached to a cabinet submission, but for the exemption to apply it had to be established that submission to cabinet was the purpose, understood at the time, for which it was prepared.The evidence on this(at 69 )was equivocal. Cabinet had asked the Treasurer to come back with recommendations after the working party had completed its report, but it was clear the report was for the Treasurer and was submitted to him. On one reading it was open to Professor Walker to conclude that the document was a preliminary document of a kind not covered by the Cabinet exemption , but he attached weight to other evidence including the views of a senior officer in the Prime Minister's Department that everyone understood the document would end up going to cabinet even though no-one actually said this(at 84).

Treasury dropped the argument that the working party report as a whole was exempt as a cabinet document,but came at the issue through a side door, submitting that it was contrary to the public interest to disclose this document because:

"release of the report would disclose the content of material prepared to support a recommendation to Cabinet and formulated for the purpose of assisting Cabinet deliberations and a Cabinet decision. Disclosure would breach the convention of Cabinet confidentiality, which is pivotal to the proper functioning of the executive and the parliament of the Commonwealth. Even though the full report does not fall within the terms of (the cabinet exemption) the public interest would not be served by interfering with the convention of confidentiality"(at 112)

Professor Walker in essence accepted the argument that the product of consideration of the issues by a group of senior public servants should be accorded the same degree of confidentiality as the deliberations of ministers in the cabinet room because cabinet subsequently looked at a submission from the Treasurer on the same subject that may or may not have reflected their views or recommendations.

It was irrelevant that the report was not provided to cabinet, considered by it or adopted by it(at115);that no deliberations of cabinet would be directly disclosed(at117);that there was no inherent sensitivity of the subject matter(at119);that four years had elapsed since the report was prepared(at121);or that there had been a change of government in the meantime(at122).

All this my be "good law "in the sense there are precedents that support this interpretation of the Act and conclusions drawn from the evidence by Professor Walker.

But if the Rudd Government is really interested in striking the right balance between the right to know and the confidentiality necessary for the operations of government, and encouraging public participation in government decision making(an underlying rationale of the FOI Act for 25 years) ,it needs to do something about an act that contemplates decisions like this, and about the attitudes to disclosure by agencies such as Treasury that seem inclined to grab onto an exemption claim just because they can.

Someone at the 2020 Summit might ask the question.

Love to know what Kate Harrison, now chief of staff to the minister responsible John Faulkner makes of this.She acted for Fisse until appointed to the Minister's staff a few months ago.

Openness,transparency and accountability a key focus at 2020 Summit

From a report in today's Herald Sun, featuring comment from each chair of the 10 sub-groups, John Hartigan reflects on the challenge for Governance:

"IT has been easy for some to criticise the summit. Most of it has been superficial and cynical. It shows why a discussion is long overdue. The time is right for smart, passionate, creative thinkers to consider bold changes for Australia. The governance group will examine ways to overcome the limits of the electoral cycle that stifles the kind of bipartisanship that's needed. Australians often lack faith in politics and the machinery of government. We are increasingly denied access to government information we have a right to know. I don't think too many Australians are satisfied with the way our three levels of government work together. There are also questions about whether our rights are protected. Equally, there are calls for a return to greater personal responsibility.

In tackling these issues we've focused on improving the openness, transparency and accountability of government, overhauling parliamentary democracy, reinventing Federation and the administration of government. We will re-examine our rights as well as our responsibilities as citizens. "

2020 Summit submissions published

Well, yes there does appear to be the odd shortcoming in our system of government.

Even before the 2020 Summit commences,775 submissions were received on Governance issues by closing time last week and have now been published on the 2020 website( go here and select "Governance").

I'm there at no.8140,but you may have seen the submission here last week

I don't know what the secretariat intends to try to make sense of all this for participants.It's unlikely they will have time to sift through the submissions before Saturday. Good process would require an effort to synthesise what has been put on the table so as to inform discussion and debate.

I intend to have a trawl through the submissions to seek to identify any new thoughts about open government related issues over the next few days

Poll says Aussie democracy AOK

The ANU Poll of 1000 Australians in March about what they think about governance includes:

Confidence in Institutions
• Australians have most confidence in the defence forces, universities and the police, and least confidence in the public service, trade unions and banks.
• In an international context, the confidence Australians express in their institutions is some of the highest in the world.

Satisfaction with Democracy
• There is a high level of satisfaction with democracy in Australia.
• Satisfaction has been consistently high since the late 1960s, with the partial exception of the period immediately after the 1975 constitutional crisis.
• Australia ranks as one of the countries with the highest levels of satisfaction with democracy in the world.

What constitutes "democracy" for the purposes of the poll isn't mentioned.

It will be surprising if the Governance Group at the 2020 Summit at the weekend concludes everything is as rosy as this sample of punters seems to think.There are lots of "could do much better"markers starting with the right to access government information. I could but won't go on.

FOI delivers another head on a plate

A document obtained under the Freedom of Information Act,and some painstaking reconstruction of another trashed document by the Tasmanian Greens, have led to the resignation of the Deputy Premier of Tasmania, Steve Kons, after it was revealed that he had misled Parliament. Documents also reveal that the then head of the Premier's Department Linda Hornsey intervened successfully to stop an appointment to the magistracy by Kons of the person responsible for examining the Gunns pulp mill proposal, who had during that time raised difficult questions with the proponents.Kons had denied in Parliament that he had proposed the appointment,but the trashed document showed otherwise.

According to this report in The Mercury , Hornsey has been in Canberra heading the 2020 Summit Secretariat.

Hmmm.

2020 Summit submission

Here are my 500 words submitted today to the PM's 2020 Summit on the Governance topic.

Identify those provisions in the Constitution that are outdated (eg Section 59 gives the Queen power to disallow any law made by the Australian Parliament within one year of assent) or inadequate (eg Section 51 gives the Commonwealth authority over lighthouses and buoys, but makes no mention of the environment).

Promote public understanding of these issues, and the reasons why change is desirable.

Include in the debate the republic and effective protection of human rights.

Clear up uncertainty about roles and responsibilities of the different tiers of government with constitutional reform where necessary.

Appoint an adviser to the Prime Minister responsible for enhancing democratic practices. The Prime Minister should set targets and report progress.

Promote a better understanding among the voters of the importance of democratic principles and participation in public affairs.

Ensure that the political parties who control who stands for election, and frequently how members vote in parliament, have an obligation to have regard for the need for parliament to be broadly representative of the community as a whole.

Proscribe party fund raising such as payments to sit with ministers at events, which are inconsistent with the principle of equal access to decision makers.

Enshrine the principles of open and transparent government in the day to day operations of government agencies.

Require the release of research to promote discussion and debate on policy issues that impact on the public.

Reconsider the need for the 80 separate secrecy provisions in Commonwealth laws and repeal Section 70 of the Crimes Act that imposes strict liability for unauthorised disclosure of any “fact” acquired by an officer in the course of duties.

Make information promptly and publicly available on the web about the allocation and use of public funds, grants to organisations and contracts, the register of interests of members of parliament and their travel and expenditure details.

Recognise that in many areas government information is a national asset that could be further utilised by the non government sector to achieve economic and social advancement. Examine the costs and benefits of current limitations on access, copyright and cost recovery policies and what could emerge if the government provided such an incentive for the development of an information economy.

Modernise the Freedom of Information Act to reflect the digital world through a right of access to information rather than to paper-based documents. Simplify the Act to require disclosure unless identifiable harm would result. Impose administrative sanctions for any failure to comply with the open government principles of the legislation. Recognise publicly outstanding performance by individuals who through release of information promote public debate and discussion of government policy proposals.

Extend the Act to cover any organisation involved in the provision of services on behalf of a government agency, and any privatised body that conducts functions that were previously the responsibility of a government agency.

Provide that a failure to respond to a request for information is deemed to be a decision to grant access, unless the information commissioner authorises non disclosure.

Some more concerns about 2020 Summit papers

Following on from the comment here yesterday about the Governance topic, Henry Ergas in today's Australian points out some problems with other 2020 Summit background papers.