Voices for action on influence peddling: the only ones missing are those who can make it happen

Pathetic disclosure requirements for political donations and half baked regulation of lobbying have been known weaknesses and sources of concern for years at all levels of government particularly for the Feds. What we're learning now about the Mafia and about what passes for 'business as usual' in both major parties surely means the time has come....surely?

ABC Four Corners: The Mafia in Australia

GEOFFREY WATSON SC, COUNSEL ASSISTING, NSW ICAC: When you look at the (Liberal Party aligned) Millennium Forum website or the way in which it organises functions, the idea is that you would be a donor of a particular value and that would get you so much access, whether at dinners or fundraising events of different kinds. It's access in return for a donation.
NICK MCKENZIE: It's all about getting the ear of a politician?
GEOFFREY WATSON: Exactly: and nothing else...
..On how many occasions would you see it that a donation was quickly followed by a request to meet a politician? Then ask yourself: why is somebody requesting a meeting with a politician? It's not just to get to know them. It's to influence them as to their decision making. Of course there's a connection.

Sydney Morning Herald-related article: Glad handing and influence:mafia taking fast track to the powerful:

The amount of money Madafferi and his associates generated for the Liberal Party is likely to be in the tens of thousands of dollars (records show one Madafferi company donated at least $23,000), although the true figure will never be known because of Australia's opaque fundraising disclosure laws...

The federal police investigated the Madafferi donations and lobbying, but stated the "nexus between those donations identified and any political leverage could not be substantiated". They were, in part, blinded by Australia's inadequate disclosure regime. Their inquiry, recently obtained under freedom of information laws, warned that police had found "numerous issues relating to the disclosure of donations to political parties". These "issues" meant investigators have limited oversight of who was donating how much, and why.

Fairfax Media- related article: Political fund raising can't be left to trust

Our system of democracy relies on transparency. If vested interests can get closer to power by donating money, then the public has a right to know about it.

Bernard Keane in Crikey on political donations and disclosure 'rules' as revealed at the Royal Commission:

How bad was Bill Shorten's convenient failure to declare a donation in kind to his election campaign in 2007 from a company? At eight years after the event, it is almost certainly the latest declaration ever. But for $40,000-odd, it's an also-ran. When it comes to our political donation "laws", late declarations and amendments are normal. Political parties routinely get away with declaring hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations years later, long after anyone has stopped scrutinising them. And it's deliberate.....

So what will almost certainly happen to the existing requirements as a result of Shorten's embarrassment? Nothing. Both recent attempts at improving the Commonwealth donation disclosure laws -- John Faulkner's 2009 effort and then the Gillard government's effort in 2013, when Tony Abbott reneged on a signed bipartisan deal for reform -- have come to nought. And while the media will pursue Shorten for his eight-years-late-and-forty-thousand-dollars-short declaration, the Coalition won't have much to say, knowing that there are likely to be plenty of embarrassing disclosures of its own that might emerge from any thorough examination of what parties are being paid. Instead, we'll be stuck with disclosure laws that border on a joke and leave us in the dark about who is trying to buy influence over our politicians.

Sean Nicholls in the SMH on funding reform and a Federal ICAC:

The question mark about influence hanging over both arrangements is another reminder of not only the need for  donations law reform nationally but also the glaring absence of a federal ICAC. Prime Minister Tony Abbott is on the record opposing the move. But last year, NSW Labor gave in-principle support for a federal ICAC-like body and voted to refer it to this year's federal Labor conference. Labor - and Shorten - should embrace the idea and begin pressing the government for action.

Professor Ian Ramsey, the director of the Centre for Corporate Law at Melbourne University, said new rules were needed to ensure complete transparency:

"For quite a number of years now, many people, myself included, have really seen significant limitations in terms of our existing disclosure requirements," Professor Ramsey said. "In particular, there are important issues about the transparency, how much is disclosed, and also how quickly that information is disclosed. "Certainly I think there is a real need for improvement."

Then there's Professor Marian Sawer on The Conversation.

And Independent senator Nick Xenophon wants changes to political donations to end what he calls a "financial arms race" in Australian politics.

There are other voices but..

 Nothing so far from those in the leadership positions that count. Plus ca change..


 

NSW lobbying reforms-not quite up to ICAC standards

NSW Premier Mike Baird announced yesterday further detail of changes to lobbying rules, which he said "will immediately implement ICAC recommendations on lobbying that were ignored by NSW Labor." 

Yes, they have been sitting, unattended in someone's in-tray for three and a half years.

But the changes, welcome as they might be, don't quite follow the ICAC recommendations summarised here in 2010 when the report was released.

The Premier said the package will increase transparency and enhance regulation of lobbying by:
. Establishing the Electoral Commission as an independent regulator of lobbyists;
. Applying a set of ethical standards to all third-party lobbyists and other organisations that lobby government;
. Empowering the independent regulator to investigate alleged breaches and impose sanctions, which could result in lobbying firms being removed from the Lobbyist Register and other organisations placed on a Watch List and their access to government restricted.   . Requiring Ministers to publish quarterly diary summaries of scheduled meetings with external organisations on portfolio-related activities; and
. Approving a recommendation from ICAC that the Ministerial Code of Conduct become applicable under the ICAC Act, giving the watchdog the power to investigate and make findings on a Minister’s compliance with the Code.  
(The Media Release is reproduced in full below-the new Premier doesn't appear to have a website for such things yet.)  

The ICAC Report proposed that an independent entity such as the Information Commissioner should maintain, monitor and enforce the rules ( Recommendation 8, and Chapter 9). Just why the Electoral Commission is a better choice hasn't been explained.

Other ICAC recommendations that seem to have been, ahem, overlooked include:
 • establish a public sector meeting protocol for the conduct of meetings with lobbyists, for the minuting of these meetings and relevant telephone calls, and for the retention of records of Lobbying Activity in accordance with the State Records Act 1998 (Recommendations 2 and 3, and Chapter 7)

• amend the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (“the GIPA Act”) to include records of Lobbying Activity in the definition of “open access information”, for which there is no overriding public interest against disclosure. Under the GIPA Act, open access information held by an agency must be made publicly available, including on a website maintained by the agency ( Recommendation 4, and Chapter 7)
• the Lobbyists Register should  disclose the month and year in which they engaged in Lobbying Activity, the identity of the government department, agency or ministry lobbied, the name of any Senior Government Representative lobbied, and, in the case of Third Party Lobbyists, the name of the client or clients for whom the lobbying occurred and the name of any entity related to the client the interests of which did derive or would have derived a benefit from a successful outcome of the lobbying (see Recommendation 7, and Chapter 9)
• enable an interested person to use the information disclosed on the proposed Lobbyists Register, in relation to the date of lobbying and who was lobbied, in order to seek access to further information from the relevant public sector agency through the various mechanisms set out in the GIPA Act ( Chapter 9)
• impose restrictions on former ministers, parliamentary secretaries, their staff and senior government officers from acting as lobbyists ( Recommendation 10, and Chapter 10)

There were separate recommendations (13-17) for a new regime for local councils as well.

Alas, still a long way to go on the journey towards high standards of integrity in public life. 
Maybe more to come Premier?

But NSW is moving more than a tad ahead of Canberra and most other states - not before time of course.

ICAC heat prompts promise of a peek at ministers' diary

Look forward to the detail but this is a step in the right direction.

 As Sean Nicholls reports in the SMH new NSW Premier Baird sees wisdom in more transparency:

A summary of ministerial diaries will be published quarterly by the NSW government to try to improve transparency around meetings with lobbyists and others, following evidence at the Independent Commission Against Corruption...The information made public will include the purpose of the meeting, which organisation is involved and details of any registered lobbyists present. Cabinet matters, personal information and details deemed "commercial in confidence" will not be included. Nor will "strictly" electorate or party political matters. Mr Baird said the publication of ministerial diaries would "help restore the public’s trust in our political system and the MPs that represent them". "There needs to be better transparency and accountability in the way ministers deal with business," he said. "The public has a right to know who is knocking on the doors and sitting in offices with our senior politicians." He said only Queensland has a similar regime in place. "This is an important step that puts on notice any lobbyist or business thinking about breaking the rules or expecting favourable treatment," Mr Baird said. “We are nailing shut the back door to government, and I will be announcing further measures in due course.”

There is plenty of scope for 'further measures." For example appointments of senior minders, department heads and senior executive officers and even meetings with journalists, and their organisations.This could be brought together in a searchable website that includes use of entitlements, travel, gifts, donations and pecuniary interests. 

And something similar for all parliamentarians?

Canberra and the other states and territories to follow the lead?

While the cat was away......

Glad of any input on the mice at play. Certain to be plenty that I missed.

As noted here, no positive vibe concerning Australian membership and participation in the Open Government Partnership.

The Federal Government Commission of Audit report ventured into the open government space recommending among many 'courageous' initiatives, the non controversial improvement in timely access to data and better arrangements for reuse. Read Craig Thomler's take. The administrative changes noted by Renai LeMay don't seem conducive to this.

The Commission also proposed the merger of various tribunals into the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the consolidation of  a number of federal ombudsmen into an over-arching ombudsman, and in what is the latest in a long running campaign by the Department  to run it into the ground, that the Australian Law Reform Commission be absorbed into the Department of the Attorney General.


Senator Joe Ludwig in The Guardian wrote "Here's why a strong FOI act matters: it keeps the bastards honest." (An easy shot from the opposition front bench of course, but he's right. Here is a comment on Labor's FOI legacy.) Nothing from the government on the recommendations arising from the Hawke FOI review so, who knows, they may still speak to some outside government before picking up the bits the public servants like.

No major developments regarding the mild tugging (so far) to get the government to table documents in response to senate orders concerning Operation Sovereign Borders although  things on production generally are not as bleak and uniformly negative as they were after the first few months of this parliament. This Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee report in which the non government majority recommend further examination of the NSW model for resolving issues concerning production of documents came in for limited debate on 6 March. The matter seems certain to be taken further. 

Cai-Wikipedia Commons

Evidence before the the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption provided new depressing insights into the practice of the dark arts of influence peddling, and factional struggles within the Liberal Party. The Premier and the Minister for Police resigned, and fallout is continuing. Reform of political donation laws, lobbying rules, and disclosure requirements is in the air even before the Commission reports, although there are plenty of relevant Commission recommendations that go back years gathering dust in government in-trays.

The NSW mess has embroiled former Federal assistant treasurer Senator Arthur Sinodinis. As the Liberal Party at the Federal level has opposed previous attempts to do something more on political donations, interesting to see where things go from here in this and related areas. The Greens will introduce a bill next week to establish a Federal independent anti-corruption body. Flow on effects in other states seem likely.

Jack Waterford's account in The Canberra Times of what turned up in his ASIO file is good fun. You would like to think what he found recorded is just a reminder of the paranoia of earlier times, but who knows? The article is an extract from Dirty Secrets: Our ASIO Files, edited by Meredith Burgmann.

Arrived back in Sydney during Privacy Awareness Week and managed to get to a breakfast debate yesterday on aspects of the ALRC Discussion Paper "Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Age." The proposal for a Commonwealth Act to establish a statutory cause of action for a serious invasion of privacy seems a lost cause before things go any further, given reported comment by Attorney General Brandis, reported in The Australian that "the Government has made it clear on numerous occasions that it does not support a tort of privacy." For those who don't give up easily on hopeless causes in the name of good public policy, submissions close 12 May. 

Australian Information Commissioner Professor McMillan outlined an alternative model based on amendments to the Privacy Act and the current regulatory system but this would involve amongst other major changes, removing current Privacy Act exemptions enjoyed by small business, the media and political parties and there isn't any likliehood of this government being interested in that either. Realistically, the far less satisfactory outcome 'leave it to the courts' is likely methinks.

(Addendum: Stilgherrian was there too, and wrote this account.)

Lobbyists lobbying for changes to NSW lobbying rules

Wikimedia Commons-Adam J.W.C

A public test of their skills? 

Some suggestions go beyond self interest, and that's a good thing although they stop short of reasonable expectations on the transparency front. 

The media in the first stage of the committee hearings has focused on the travails of Minister for Community Services Pru Goward and DOCS.

However the terms of reference for the select upper house inquiry are broad covering ministerial responsibility, potential conflicts between public duties and other interests, lobbying, and ministerial and parliamentarian codes of conduct.

Three of the five submissions are from lobbyists.

The submissions recommend movement towards a nationally consistent scheme. 

They argue, with only shades of difference, that the current registration scheme, or at least the ethical standards incorporated in the lobbyist code should extend beyond third party lobbyists to in-house lobbying staff and service providers such as lawyers and consultants when engaging on a client's behalf to seek to influence government decision making.

Premier State Consulting wants the scheme extended to lobbying local government, and suggests lobbyists should be banned from providing goods and services to the NSW Government. Premier State and the Public Relations Institute of Australia submit the scheme should also extend to lobbying members of parliament and their staff.

The PRIA submission, perhaps with an eye to Queensland where this is part of the scheme and on a proposal floated by the Independent Commission Against Corruption in 2010 but not acted upon, submit lobbyists should not be required to report contacts. Recording and reporting should be the responsibility of the government representative or employee. Transparency should be enforced through freedom of information to ensure appropriate disclosure and protection of confidentiality where necessary for personal or business reasons.

Overall however the lobbyists have gone quiet on these ICAC recommendations:

• amend the Government Information (Public Access) Act to include records of Lobbying Activity in the definition of “open access information” for which there is no overriding public interest against disclosure. Open access information held by an agency must be made publicly available, including on a website maintained by the agency.

• require disclosure of the month and year in which they engaged in Lobbying Activity, the identity of the government department, agency or ministry lobbied, the name of any Senior Government Representative lobbied, and, in the case of Third Party Lobbyists, the name of the client or clients for whom the lobbying occurred and the name of any entity related to the client the interests of which did derive or would have derived a benefit from a successful outcome of the lobbying.

• enable an interested person to use the information disclosed on the proposed Lobbyists Register, in relation to the date of lobbying and who was lobbied, in order to seek access to further information from the relevant public sector agency through the various mechanisms set out in the GIPA Act

• provide for an independent government entity, such as the NSW Information Commissioner, to maintain and monitor the Lobbyists Register, and have powers to impose sanctions on lobbyists.

The current keeper of the register and enforcer of the rules, the Department of Premier and Cabinet has also made a submission. 

Of particular interest is the Department's initiative in publishing correspondence with lobbyist Joseph Tannous and his firm First State about claims on Linked in about his capacity to attain 'desired results' for clients. Until 18 September Mr Tannous was a member of the Executive of the NSW Liberal Party. The Premier has announced that from the end of October office holders in political parties cannot register as a lobbyist. The Prime Minister said the Federal Government would follow suit. We should be grateful for small mercies

The fifth submission is from Queensland Integrity Commissioner Dr David Solomon who has a long background in this field, and has written extensively on ministerial responsibility.

Dr Solomon supports extension of the scheme to others engaged in seeking to influence decisions, and argues the scheme should be incorporated in legislation. 

The Queensland Commissioner comments that it is 'extraordinary' that the NSW Ministerial Code of Conduct is not a standard within the purview of the ICAC, in contrast to the Code of Conduct for MPs: 

"For the most part it is the Ministers who wield power. They are the Government. If they are exempt the Ministers who constitute the government are not answerable for breaches of the Code of Conduct that applies specifically to them as Ministers...."

We await with interest to see what the committee makes of that.