NSW Premier Baird takes a step towards restoring trust

NSW, already with the toughest laws in the country regarding political donations is to go further. If the Federal and other state governments don't follow please ask why:

Legislation to be introduced into Parliament today will:

• Broadly double penalties for a range of offences under the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosure Act;
• Prohibit third party arrangements being used to avoid donation and expenditure caps – carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment;
• Allow for prosecutions for all future offences to be commenced up to 10 years after the offence was committed – up from the current three years; and
• Require parties to disclose political donations received from 1 July 2014 to 1 February 2015 – this disclosure must be made within one week of the end of this period to the Electoral Funding Authority, to be made public before the election.

Mr Baird said a new, fairer public funding model will be introduced to reduce the corrosive influence of donations in the political system. Under changes to be introduced, the government will lower caps on political donations and spending caps for political parties and third party campaigners while a new model of public funding will be introduced that rewards performance rather than spending.

Update-Parliament passed the bill on 21 October. A fair bit of criticism as reported by Sean Nicholls  including late changes that do not reduce the amount of private donations able to be raised and spent by parties. On the transparency front parties will have to disclose donations received between July 2014 and March 1, 2015 before the election on March 28 next year. The initial proposal was for the disclosure period to end on February 1.

Voices for integrity, transparency and accountability

Are politicians everywhere listening?  

Senator John Faulkner in his address Public Pessimism, Political Complacency: Restoring Trust, Reforming Labor (pdf) and the NSW Panel of Experts chaired by Dr Kerry Schott in the Interim Report-Political Donations sang from the same integrity, transparency and accountability songbook this week with a refrain that should be heard in the Federal and all state jurisdictions: the current rules regarding political donations erode public trust and confidence and contribute to the perception of corruption. 

Senator Faulkner (who had plenty to say also about reform of the Labor Party) recalled his reform proposals of 2009 (that never made it through the Senate) including measures

• to reduce the donations disclosure threshold from its current level of $12,800 to $1,000 and remove indexation;
   
• prohibit foreign and anonymous donations;
   
• limit the potential for 'donation splitting' across branches, divisions or different units of parties;
   
• require faster and more regular disclosure of donations; and
   
• introduce new offences and significantly increase penalties for the breach of electoral law.

The Panel established by NSW Premier Mike Baird indicated action is needed to ensure closer to real time time disclosure of reportable donations so that voters are aware of fundraising activity before an election; increased penalties for serious breaches of election funding laws, a longer time period for commencing prosecutions and a new anti circumvention measure-disqualification from office for those who deliberately seek to avoid election finance laws; and mandatory education programs for candidates and members of parliament on ethical conduct and compliance with the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act (NSW). A final report with recommendations is due in December; the NSW state election in March 2015.

Transparency failings in regulating the exercise of power and influence

I don't think I've written anything about our pathetic Commonwealth disclosure laws for political donations since noting in 2010 that donations made then would be made public in February 2012, and lamenting the absence of anything close to real time disclosure. Here we are now at the due date with plenty of media attention to the details of who gave what to whom.

But Bernard Keane nails it in Crikey today

"..at the Commonwealth level, the laws about electoral donations are a complete disgrace. That we are only finding out 17 months after the 2010 election who donated to the major parties is a blight on our democracy — one the mainstream media, normally quick off the mark to denounce any lack of political transparency, seems to ignore. That blight is there because the Coalition and Steve Fielding blocked reforms proposed by John Faulkner during the Rudd government that would have significantly accelerated the reporting cycle for donations, as well as reducing the reporting threshold back to $1000, rather than the current $11,500 threshold created by the Howard government. To its credit, Labor reports according to the $1000 threshold. The Coalition — complying with the law — does not...."

Pathetic is also the word that comes to mind regarding the current level of transparency in the related field of lobbying. Last year Special Minister of State Gray announced these results of a year long consultation about "improvements" to the registration scheme. No one seemed to find any newsworthy angle-and rightfully so.

The minister showed not even a hint of interest in meaningful reform such as disclosure requirements concerning lobbyist activity canvassed in this post, or in ideas floated in this NSW ICAC report.

Ah, but in the absence of more transparency, the register of lobbyists was to be given something of a lift (?) by placing responsibility with a parliamentary integrity commissioner, part of the agreements with the independents/ third parties after the 2010 election.

We have no commissioner-PM&C manages the scheme. And as The Australian reported on 30 December, the federal parliament would not have one or "a code of conduct for politicians until late next year (2012) at the earliest, despite Julia Gillard having pledged to put these anti-corruption measures (sic) in place by last September."

Update: a reader points out that the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee is conducting an inquiry into the operation of the Lobbying Code of Conduct and the Lobbyist Register, to report by 1 March. Not surprisingly lobbyists (including former senator Guy Barnett) are well represented in published submissions. Others suggesting significant change, some along the lines of the NSW ICAC report, include Dr Bob Such the Member for Fisher, Action on Smoking and Health, NSW Greens Political Donation Project, the McCusker Center for Action on Alcohol and Youth and Mike Ahrens (of TI International).

And of particular interest, weighty submissions from the Accountability Roundtable, and the Queensland Integrity Commissioner Dr David Solomon AM, who has the benefit of experience with such things in that state and is strongly critical of Australia's regulatory effort, pointing out what should be done to lift our game:

Governments have publicly justified the regulation of lobbyists on the basis that this is required by “public expectations of transparency, integrity and honesty”, as the Commonwealth’s lobbyists code of conduct puts it. If that intention is to be met, it is desirable that the regulation should not leave gaping holes that can be exploited by entities that wish to lobby but to avoid being caught up in the regulatory scheme. Creating a level playing field should be one of the aims of the scheme. As explained above that should include broadening the categories of lobbyists who are required to register (or required to adhere to the requirements of the Code of Conduct, in the case, for example, of in-house lobbyists); it should also cover the lobbying of legislators who are not Ministers or parliamentary secretaries. The scheme should also make it possible for the public generally, and others in the lobbying business, to monitor what lobbying is occurring. To be effective, that will probably require publicly accessible registers, to which both government representatives and lobbyists should be required to file reports of lobbying contacts. It is desirable that there be sanctions introduced, for breaches of the Code, and for lobbying by unregistered lobbyists. There is also a need for rules that govern the time that former Ministers and other government representatives are banned from lobbying activities in areas where they have previously had official dealings.

Achieving these aims will require legislation. It would be desirable if the Commonwealth and the States could agree on uniform legislation. This would reduce red tape and the burden on lobbyists and the entities they represent, making it possible to have, for example, a mutual recognition regime and removing the need for multiple registrations. But in any event, if regulation is to be effective and backed by sanctions, legislation is necessary and desirable.

In the interests of transparency and accountability, it is also desirable that the scheme should be administered by an independent person, and preferably an officer of the Parliament, reporting to a parliamentary committee.

Who's on Tony Abbott's mailing list?

Not sure how widespread this was across the country but yesterday here, an out of the blue email from Tony Abbott, to which this reply this morning-will post any response:

Mr Abbott,
Your email received yesterday claiming dire consequences as a result of climate change legislation, and asking for a donation, is the first ever received from you, or in memory, from the NSW Liberal Party.

One, how did you/the NSW Liberal Party obtain our email address? It’s no secret, but we don’t appreciate what amounts to an unsolicited commercial message (your offer, in exchange, to hold the government to account), even from organisations that are exempt from the Spam Act.

Two, can you tell us why you think political parties should enjoy continued exemption from the Spam Act and the Privacy Act?  With regard to the latter, the party appears to collect, use and perhaps disclose personal information that is not subject to a right to inspect and amend if incorrect?

Three, just to show that you/the Liberal Party follow good privacy practices regardless, please forward whatever other personal information you or the party holds in data bases about Peter or Susan Timmins so we can check if it is correct and up to date.

Four, I’m appalled at your stand on the climate change issue and your overwhelming negativity on just about everything to do with addressing important issues that face the nation.

Five, please ensure we are removed from whatever mailing list you used, after you reply to One and Two and respond to Three. You no doubt have our street address and phone numbers.

Six, this has been sent also to our local member Malcolm Turnbull, who has our email address and sends constituents news from time to time.

Peter and Susan Timmins.

Political parties and the media both take comfort from privacy law exemption

Melbourne's Herald Sun and The Age are hard at it over the latter's access to the ALP's Eleczella voter database just before last year's state election, summarised here by George Megalogenis in The Australian, with some important issues surfacing about a stolen computer and ethics following publication of what The Age got up to.

The Age first ran with its foray into the database last November under the headline "Revealed: How the ALP keeps secret files on voters" but Peter van Onselen began writing about this ALP "secret" and the Liberal Party equivalent in 2003.

Don't expect the Privacy Commissioner to investigate the following privacy invasive searches of the millions of entries in the database as the players in this are a media organisation and a political party, both exempt from the Privacy Act. According to an internal audit The Age:

ACCESSED the database on November 18 and using two computers logged in repeatedly over the next four days, the final access being on Monday, November 22.

ENTERED a series of fake names as part of the log-in process using the password.

COPIED the names of everyone in one seat who was concerned about the issue of abortion.

TRAWLED the database to find references to the words gay, lesbian and Muslim as well as Liberals and Greens.

SEARCHED for the names of donors to the ALP.

Attempted to search the personal details of Victoria's Police Commissioner Simon Overland, 3AW's Neil Mitchell, the ABC's Jon Faine -- as well as his son Jack Faine, former Melbourne lord mayor Kevin Chamberlin and pollster Gary Morgan.

Don't worry. Megalogenis reports the senior editor at The Age as saying:

At no stage did we misuse or improperly disseminate the private details we witnessed on that database.

As to the ALP treasure trove of personal information about voters, in 2008 the Australian Law Reform Commission recommended the exemption from the Privacy Act- for collection, accuracy, use, safe storage and disclosure of personal information- enjoyed by political parties should be removed:

41.54 In the interests of promoting public confidence in the political process, those who exercise or seek power in government should adhere to the principles and practices that are required of the wider community. 

The federal government tells us this recommendation will be considered sometime in 2012. That will be four years after it was made, six years after the then government commissioned a review.

 

And what price a "courageous" decision on this one even then, given an ALP submission to the Commission that argued [4.36]

the exemption for registered political parties under the Privacy Act is essential to the conduct of election campaigns and facilitates the effective communication of the policies, ideas and visions which underpin our democratic processes.

Or on other ALRC recommendations for change to the conditions attached to privacy self regulation by media organisations, and for legislation for a statutory cause of action for a serious unwarranted breach of privacy, also down for consideration.... in 2012?

No worries, no hurry, on privacy reform

The Age has had a scoop over the last two days with reports about voter profiles held by the ALP in its Victorian campaign data base, which once revealed came as a surprise to those affected, although information about the systems and processes has been around for years

These systems to collect and use personal information in campaigns and other activities continue because the Privacy Act does not apply to registered political parties or to political representatives engaged in certain activities "in the political process."

The Australian Law Reform Commission 2008 privacy report recommended the exemption be removed:

41.54 In the interests of promoting public confidence in the political process, those who exercise or seek power in government should adhere to the principles and practices that are required of the wider community.

But don't hold your breath about a government response to this, or to other recommendations for the removal of the exemption enjoyed by businesses with turnover of less than $3 million ( relevant to this week's report about workplace spying), the changes to the conditions for continuation of the media exemption from the act, for a data breach notification requirement (relevant to this report of Telstra's woes), or a raft of other important issues that the government has had for over two years. All these are for a second or third phase response to the report somewhere down the track. We're only up to phase one, the referral of a set of uniform privacy principles to a parliamentary committee in June this year, after some tweaking of those proposed by the ALRC. The Committee is to report on this aspect by the end of the second sitting week in 2011.

The Minister for Privacy and Freedom of Information Brendan O'Connor was quoted by The Australian on the workplace spying issue as saying due to the complexity and sensitivity" of relevant ALRC recommendations, the government wanted to "consult extensively." 

Last month the Minister said privacy reform won't be rushed, outlining a timetable for finalising legislative action on privacy by the middle of 2012- six and a half years after the ALRC was asked to review the law.

One of these days....

"We're politicians- trust us with your personal information!"

US Postal Service

As you are inundated with often personal mail, phone and email messages about how to vote on 21 August, and scratch your head about how well attuned some of these messages are to your personal circumstances, a reminder that the Commonwealth Privacy Act does not apply to registered political parties or to political representatives engaging in certain activities ‘in the political process.’ And that the Australian Law Reform Commission recommended two years ago that the exemption should be removed: