Following on from the NZ government decision to reject a recommendation that the offices of the parliament should be subject to the Official Information Act regarding administrative matters, defined with a bit more detail than that, the
parliamentary departments in Canberra in a joint submission to the Hawke review argue they should only be subject to the FOI act, if at all, in relation to documents containing matter of an administrative nature.
They raise issues about the impact of FOI coverage and the institution and status of the parliament (decisions subject to review by the OAIC, tribunal and courts), privilege, and confidentiality. The Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Library and the Parliamentary Librarian have also raised concern in additional and separate submissions about coverage of the library, and the need for confidentiality when a member or senator seeks research assistance.
I don't know if the privilege and confidentiality arguments carry much weight-there are existing exemptions that would be relevant in any event. But if they do and given the narrow interpretation of "in relation to matters of an administrative nature" in the courts, a preferable approach would be to spell out in detail what is and isn't covered by the act as it applies to them. All the time making sure all payments to, for and on behalf of parliamentarians are not just within scope but a publication requirement.
The issue was raised in Senate Estimates hearings this week. Extracts follow, for diehards.
They raise issues about the impact of FOI coverage and the institution and status of the parliament (decisions subject to review by the OAIC, tribunal and courts), privilege, and confidentiality. The Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Library and the Parliamentary Librarian have also raised concern in additional and separate submissions about coverage of the library, and the need for confidentiality when a member or senator seeks research assistance.
I don't know if the privilege and confidentiality arguments carry much weight-there are existing exemptions that would be relevant in any event. But if they do and given the narrow interpretation of "in relation to matters of an administrative nature" in the courts, a preferable approach would be to spell out in detail what is and isn't covered by the act as it applies to them. All the time making sure all payments to, for and on behalf of parliamentarians are not just within scope but a publication requirement.
The issue was raised in Senate Estimates hearings this week. Extracts follow, for diehards.
As
an aside to the main discussion about FOI coverage, Senator Faulkner in commenting about a Senate Committee
report, said the Department of Parliamentary Services had been
"the worst administered department I had seen in all my time in parliament, and I have had plenty of experience on both sides of the table and dealt with plenty of what I think might be inadequate administrative practices. Nothing comes close to what we were facing in the Department of Parliamentary Services Yes, it has improved, and I think everyone on this side of the table is grateful for that, but there is still a very critical issue here about oversight and how we got to the situation that we did."
All this predated last year's surprise development that the departments other than the Parliamentary Budget Office had been subject to the FOI act for years. Senator Faulkner is mainly talking about the apparent failure of the presiding officers and other accountabilty
mechanisms. But it sounds like another strong argument for increased transparency and
accountability, including via FOI on Capital Hill.
