Sports rorts-would Sir Humphrey be proud?

Some exchanges during the two hours Secretary of Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet Phil Gaetjen spent before the Senate Select Committee on Administration of Sports Grants Committee on 22 July- the sports rorts committee- shouldn't stay buried away in the Hansard.

The backdrop is questioning about Mr Gaetjen's report undertaken at the request of the Prime Minister that led to the minister's resignation. And is subject to a claim of public interest immunity on grounds it is a document prepared for submission to cabinet so not available to the Committee.

Headings dedicated to the memory of Sir Humphrey Appleby:

Well, I did talk to the Minister 

Senator GALLAGHER: As part of your report, you didn't interview the Prime Minister specifically? 

Mr Gaetjens : No.

 Senator GALLAGHER Did you interview any of Mr Morrison's staff as part of your report?

Mr Gaetjens : No. My report was with respect to the minister's apparent breaches of the status of the ministerial code of conduct.

 Senator GALLAGHER Did you interview any of Senator McKenzie's staff?

Mr Gaetjens : I certainly had discussions with her chief of staff, knowing of course that, when I conducted my inquiry, the senator was in a different ministerial position. But I had no discussions with her staff when she was Minister for Sport.

Senator GALLAGHER So, as part of this, you didn't interview the staff of Minister McKenzie's office when she was Minister for Sport?

Mr Gaetjens : I think she was Minister for Sport months before the inquiry happened.

Senator GALLAGHER Yes. So you didn't go back to speak to those

Mr Gaetjens : No.The minister was responsible for the actions of her staff, so the interview with her, I thought, was sufficient.

Procedures, process? Nothing to worry about there!

Mr Gaetjens :.... I think what we did was, through my report ... basically approach the outcomes of all three rounds of the funding. I wasn't necessarily interested in the process; it was the outcomes of the funding round compared to—

Senator GALLAGHER But the process is pretty important here, isn't it, in terms of allegations of pork-barrelling and political interference? You would have thought the process leading to those decisions—

Mr Gaetjens : The process was fully outlined in the Auditor-General's report.

Senator GALLAGHER Indeed, which led to you being commissioned to conduct this assessment of whether fairness under the ministerial code of conduct was adhered to. The process is pretty important.

Mr Gaetjens : I was asked to ask about apparent breaches of the ministerial code of conduct. I was not asked to audit the sports administration program. That was my role.

Senator GALLAGHER....... I would have thought the process, including the communications between the Prime Minister's office and the minister for sport's office at the time was pretty central to you forming a view about whether there had or had not been a misconduct or whether the fairness obligations of the ministerial code of conduct had been met.

Mr Gaetjens : I will just repeat what I said: I was asked under paragraph 7.4 of the standards. The Prime Minister may seek advice from the secretariat of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on any matters within the standards. My focus was on whether the minister breached the standards.

The Auditor-General had done a report with respect to the administration of the program, and I used that report largely as the basis, with other information collected from the Department of Health and from questions asked of Sport Australia and others. ...... In the Auditor-General's report there was no mention of discussions or emails between the Prime Minister's office and the minister. In fact, it's the minister's actions that I was inquiring into.

 The Caretaker Conventions file was closed after sending a memo, no reason to open it since.

Senator GALLAGHER Mr Gaetjens, your report also doesn't note the two decision briefs authorising the expenditure of the $40 million that was sent to the Prime Minister's office in the hours after the election was called and the caretaker conventions were in place. Why is that?

Mr Gaetjens : Because it wasn't known at the time   

Senator GALLAGHER  In the evidence that you looked at, in terms of formulating your report, that did not come to your attention: that, following caretaker kicking in, decisions were still being made between the minister's and the Prime Minister's offices? You weren't aware of that? No-one told you that?

Mr Gaetjens : No.

Senator GALLAGHER So the first you knew about that was in one of these hearings?

Mr Gaetjens : Correct...

Senator GALLAGHER Were you concerned about that?

Mr Gaetjens : Not at the time, because I wasn't aware of it.

Senator GALLAGHER No? Were you concerned when you found out that decisions were being made after caretaker had kicked in, in allocating taxpayer funds?

Mr Gaetjens : Decisions can be made after the caretaker period starts. Usually, when caretaker starts, departments are advised to follow the guidance and advice of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. It is the departments and ministers who keep on making those decisions. The PM&C does not take over the decision-making ability. Everything is considered in the context of the transaction or decision being made with respect to scope, scale, importance and sensitivity, so I can't give you a one-size-fits-all answer as to whether a decision should or should not have been made in caretaker. It would relate to the actual circumstances of it being made.

Senator GALLAGHER Well, we've got an actual circumstance here. Does it bother you that $40 million of taxpayer funds were signed off after caretaker kicked in, going to projects in seats that the government was trying to win? Does it bother you, or do you think it's an appropriate use of taxpayer funds?

Mr Gaetjens : I would have to look in more detail at the actual decisions that were made.

Senator GALLAGHER Oh, come on! Mr Gaetjens, you're the head of the Public Service. It doesn't bother you that taxpayers' funds were being spent after caretaker kicked in. Extraordinary!

Mr Gaetjens : If those decisions were made with the advice or guidance of Prime Minister and Cabinet, of which at that time of course I was not a part—

Senator GALLAGHER Were they? Have you checked? Do PM&C have a view, or didn't they mind either?

Mr Gaetjens : My understanding is that advice was not sought, but I'll leave that to people who were there at the time.

CHAIR: But, when you became aware through the work of this committee or through media reports that it had happened, surely you would have then gone, 'We need to have a look at this'?

Mr Gaetjens : By that time the minister had resigned.

CHAIR: Sure.

Mr Gaetjens : Why does one need to have a look at something when the minister has resigned?

CHAIR: The minister put out a statement saying that she had no knowledge that these changes were made after she signed the brief.

Mr Gaetjens : I'm sorry, I've got no role in that. The event had happened. The minister had resigned. There was this inquiry. There'd been an Auditor-General's inquiry. What else could I do? I was asked to inquire about the minister's apparent breaches of the ministerial standards. I did that. She resigned.

Mr Gaetjens : Yes, and then the minister put out a statement when people became aware that there were changes made after she'd signed the brief saying that she'd no knowledge of that. Surely, as the head of the PM&C, you would go: 'Wow, what has gone on there? We need to get to the bottom of that.'

Mr Gaetjens : As the head of PM&C and as a public servant, I'm an adviser, not a decision-maker.

Senator GALLAGHER But you lead the Public Service, and appropriate adherence to caretaker conventions is pretty fundamental to an independent and effective public service. Surely you have a view. It's extraordinary.

The Postal Service? That Trump fellow is onto something

Senator GALLAGHER:....In terms of commissioning the report, Mr Gaetjens, Ms Foster told the finance and public administration committee the Prime Minister or his office provided oral advice of the request on Friday 17 January, and a letter dated 17 January was received on Monday 20 January. Does that adhere to your recollection?

Mr Gaetjens : Yes

..... Senator GALLAGHER.... Why did the letter take until Monday 20 January to turn up, just out of interest? 

Mr Gaetjens : I have no idea.

For heavens sake, we can't have the name of a senior staffer to the PM brandied about!

Senator Rice In the time I've got left, I want to go to issues regarding the breaches of the ministerial standards. You said in response to Senator Gallagher's question that the request for you to undertake the work was a call from a senior adviser. What was the role of that adviser?

Mr Gaetjens : I didn't say 'senior adviser'. It was a senior person in the Prime Minister's office.

Senator Rice Can you tell me what their role was?

Mr Gaetjens : I think that would identify them.

Senator Rice Was it the senior adviser for infrastructure and sport, or the senior adviser for backbench liaisons?

Seantor Abetz That would identify them!

Mr Gaetjens : It was a senior adviser in the Prime Minister's office—sorry, it was a senior staff member in the Prime Minister's office, not necessarily a position of senior adviser. Can I also say that that followed with a letter from the Prime Minister.

 Can I tell you the legal authority for the minister to make decisions? No I can't

Senator GALLAGHER I go now to the legal authority. You say the guidelines authorise Senator McKenzie to provide final approval for projects and authorise the minister to take other factors into account when deciding which projects to fund. You conclude that Senator McKenzie acted within the remit of the guidelines. Regardless of what the guidelines say, it matters whether the decision-making itself was lawful. Would you agree?

Mr Gaetjens : I think that has been covered by people more confident than I to talk about legal issues.

Senator GALLAGHER So can you tell us what was the legal authority for Senator McKenzie and not for Sport Australia to be the decision-maker?

Mr Gaetjens : No, I can't. I am not a lawyer. I think that should be addressed to other people.

Senator GALLAGHER But you have formed the view that the guidelines authorised her to make those decisions and therefore those decisions were lawful?

Mr Gaetjens : My inquiry covered a number of decisions that had been made. They were historical decisions that had been made. I then took upon the fact that those decisions had been made. I was then asked to look at whether in making those decisions there was a breach of the standards. That is the logic that I follow. I think I had also known at that time that the Prime Minister had asked the Attorney-General to provide a view about the legal status.

Senator GALLAGHER The Auditor-General said he can find no evident legal authority for Senator McKenzie's decision-making. Is the Auditor-General wrong?

Mr Gaetjens : I don't have a view on that. It is not in my purview or competence to answer that question.

Senator GALLAGHER As head of the Public Service, I presume this is a matter of interest to you about legal decision-making. Have you taken any advice based on what the Auditor-General found, because I presume it has wider application across the Public Service than just this program.

Mr Gaetjens : I am aware now of what the Attorney-General found.

Senator GALLAGHER You are talking there to the Attorney-General's finding about the legal decision-making?

Mr Gaetjens : Yes.

Senator GALLAGHER The University of Melbourne's Professor Cheryl Saunders and Professor Michael Crommelin said:

If the grants were made pursuant to the Sports Commission Act, they are invalid for failure to comply with the provisions of the Act. The Act confers on the Commission, not the Minister, the power to make grants for the purposes of the Act.

Are Professor Saunders and Professor Crommelin wrong?

Mr Gaetjens : I would have no confidence to answer that question. I am not a lawyer, I do not have legal qualifications, I am not a practising lawyer, so, again, I don't think it is an answer I can provide. All I do know is that the Attorney-General has reached his own view and I think the government would probably act according to what the Attorney-General thought.

Senator GALLAGHER The University of Sydney's Professor Anne Twomey says there appears to be no legal basis for Senator Mackenzie to be the decision-maker. Is Professor Twomey wrong?

Mr Gaetjens : My previous answer applies.

University of Adelaide's Emeritus Professor in-law, Geoff Linnell says, 'Senator McKenzie likely had lack of legal authority to either approve or participate in the decision making.' Is Professor Linnell wrong?

Mr Gaetjens : My previous answer applies.

Senator GALLAGHER So you just rely on the Attorney-General's advice to you or advice to the government?.....

Mr Gaetjens : A legal question was asked of a legally competent person....

.......................................

Added comment:

Next day former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Finance Stephen Bartos testified about the legality issue thus 

"My view is that the minister didn't have the authority to make those grants under section 83 of the Australian Constitution. Maybe it's because I worked for many, many years in the finance department, but I had it drummed into me that, under section 83, no money shall be drawn from the Treasury of the Commonwealth except under appropriation made by law—that is, ministers can't spend money unless the parliament has given them the authority to spend that money. Without that clear authority, ministers can't just spend as they wish. There are circumstances, like the advance to the finance minister, where ministers are given some discretion. But the parliament, in the case of the advance, puts a number of reporting and accountability requirements around that, precisely because it's unusual. Ministers are constrained by what the legislation says, and it does appear, looking at the legislation that governs Sport Australia, that not only did they not delegate to the minister the power to make grants; they actually may not have been able to, in any case."

 

Your Right to Know resumes after a spell

Great to see media organisations today putting Your Right to Know up in lights with the front page wrap in publications across the country

together with articles and editorials that explain (or attempt to) why excessive secrecy is everybody's business.

'Mad as hell...' has been the theme for four months following police raids on the ABC and the home of journalist Annika Smethurst. A tepid response from the government has prompted action to roll out their biggest gun-front page news with a website and strong social media presence.


The six point agenda for reform has undergone slight changes since rolled out but amounts to:

• safeguards and checks around warrants allowing interception of journalistic communications and metadata; 

• real teeth for whistleblower protection to make the Public Interest Disclosure Act worthy of its name, and making sure the proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission aligns with public interest reporting and confidentiality of sources; 

• an end to cavalier classification of many documents as secret when they should be open to public scrutiny; 

• a revamp of freedom of information laws so government cannot so easily stonewall perfectly reasonable requests for access; 

• exemption for journalists from a thicket of counter-terror laws that would put them in prison for doing their job; and

•  a vigorous effort to ensure the review of the uniform defamation law resets the legal balance so that painstaking investigative journalism can go about its work of exposing corruption, crime and abuse of power"

The 'this is everybody's business' line is welcome but slow in coming. 

Many organisations and individuals have been slogging away on advocacy on these issues consistently for years.While journalists have had plenty to write about, media moguls put little shoulder to the wheel. 

For the record:

Twelve years ago media organisations were prompted by developments to shout from the rooftops they were not going to take infringements on the public's right to know silently anymore.

Australia's Right to Know was launched in May 2007 with News Limited Chairman and CEO John Hartigan in the lead, supported by Fairfax Media, FreeTV Australia, commercial radio, ABC, SBS, Sky News, ASTRA, West Australian Newspapers, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), AAP and APN News and Media.

News Limited chairman and chief executive John Hartigan said Australia had become a "lightweight democracy" with a tangle of clumsy laws impinging on the public's right to know..... Mr Hartigan said it was time for the media to strike back."It's a matter of drawing a line in the sand and saying 'this is enough'," he said.

The coalition commissioned the Independent Audit into the State of Free Speech in Australia which delivered a 316 page report in October that year- I was the Deputy Chair.

The coalition made some headway on a couple of the issues raised in the report during the Rudd/Gillard years, and stuck around for a year or so.

Then disappeared as David Salter and Richard Ackland both commented in 2010, Ackland as follows:

I wondered why Australia's Right to Know Campaign had gone a bit quiet. This is the outfit driven by the main newspaper groups (including Fairfax) and broadcasters to lobby for fewer legal impediments that get in the way of reporters' access to information. A quick check of the Right to Know's website shows the last big thing to happen was a big free speech jamboree in Sydney a year ago. There have been no papers, reports or analysis since 2008. Maybe it's because The Australian newspaper has decided to change sides and go into the suppression business.

I wrote this at the time:

In early 2008 months after my involvement with ARTK as Deputy Chair of the Independent Audit of Free Speech finished I went to see John Hartigan, then head of News Ltd and ARTK, to make a pitch for the establishment of a permanent, professional and appropriately funded body to research, advocate, educate and lobby on freedom of speech, and the public’s right to be informed. I suggested that the media needed to seek out others who shared these interests, and that it cede some power to them so that the coalition could seek to deliver what its name conveyed-Australia's Right to Know. Voices on these issues were weak, sporadic, divided and underfunded and the coalition was well placed to change this. Hartigan listened politely, nodded at the appropriate time but that was it-and my last contact with ARTK.

A vigorous campaign would have involved enlisting allies to the cause, seeking to better inform the public about the importance of this issue, and  mounting a collective professional effort to go for gold on the reform front. The few voices that spoke up were all over the place, leading the Senate Committee to observe recently that there were many suggestions for changes to the reform bills, but no agreement on what should be changed, therefore there was no point in or time to consider them seriously, including most of those put forward by ARTK.  And of course many didn't speak up at all. ARTK three years after it formed has no web presence, no publicly available collection of submissions, no scorecard of performance, no coalition partners.

ARTK seemed to never hear about the government initiative in joining the Open Government Partnership let alone hop in to support the reform agenda that the likes of Transparency International Australia, Accountability Roundtable and others have pushed since 2013.

The case for that vigorous ongoing campaign and a collective professional effort is more important than ever.

Press Council awards 2017 Press Freedom Medals

Media Release  APC 19 May 2017.

"The Australian Press Council has awarded its Press Freedom Medal to two outstanding individuals for their major contributions to ensuring a free and open society:
Peter Timmins - Australian Open Government Partnership Network
and Michael Cameron - News Corp Australia.

The 2017 Press Freedom Medals were awarded at a special ceremony in Sydney on 19 May. As well as members of the Press Council, journalists and guests from a variety of organisations attended.

Peter Timmins is a well-known advocate of improved standards of transparency and accountability and Australia's leading expert on Freedom of Information (FOI) policy and privacy, as well as being a leader of the Australian Open Government Partnership Network and publisher of the Open and Shut blog.

Michael Cameron is the National Editorial Counsel for News Corp Australia. He leads an in-house legal team, which he established, whose members have appeared in dozens of matters involving challenges to suppression orders, injunctions, defamation actions and so on, advocating for transparency and open justice.

"The purpose of the Australian Press Council is to promote responsible journalism to inform the Australian public and support effective democratic institutions. This year's winners have been exemplary in their tireless pursuit of the critical principle that citizens have a right to know, and so governments, and other important public and private institutions, must operate in an open and transparent manner," said Chair Professor David Weisbrot.

"Although the Press Council did not set off with this intention, this year's Press Freedom Medal winners prove the point that free speech and press freedom are not only reliant on brave and capable editors and journalists, but also on lawyers, activists and others who fight to preserve and extend these freedoms."

Michael Cameron said: "I'm honoured to accept this award on behalf of the editorial legal team at News Corp Australia, whose tireless work enables the publication of articles that would be otherwise be barred by our unduly secretive courts system and plaintiff-friendly defamation laws. Special thanks goes to Larina Mullins, our senior litigation counsel, who has appeared at close to 100 suppression hearings in the last three years."

Peter Timmins said: "This is a great but unexpected honour, a tribute to the many individuals and organisations including the Press Council that believe strongly in open, transparent and accountable government and joined the network to seek to ensure the government lives up to its Open Government Partnership commitments. Pursuing reform to improve our democracy is a never-ending journey."

The Press Council has awarded Press Freedom Medals in earlier years, but it was reserved for people affiliated with the organisation. It was decided last year to revitalise the award and open it up to people who, through their work as journalists, legal practitioners, community activists or advocates, help ensure the preservation of free speech, press freedom and open and transparent government.

In May 2016, Kate McClymont of Fairfax Media and Paul Maley of News Corp Australia received the first of the medals awarded under the new criteria, to great acclaim.
Read the award citations here."

 

Putting the NSW Parliament's Interest Register under scrutiny

With an election to be held on 28 March, Nick Evershed and Todd Moore at Guardian Australia are looking for help to create a searchable, machine-readable database of the NSW Parliament Interests Register. 

Surprised this sort of information isn't already up there in lights?

I've lost the link but made a note years ago that ICAC made this recommendation in a report in 2003:

 "That the register of pecuniary interests be established as an electronic database that can be accessed via the Internet by Members of Parliament and members of the public."

Disgraced former minister Eddie Obeid got away with a micro version of the real thing for a decade probably because the register, conveniently was available for inspection in Macquarie during business hours on weekdays by those who took the trouble and few bothered.

More eyeballs might make a difference.


As Evershed and Moore explain half "the pecuniary interests register in NSW has never been viewable online by the public, and the other half is hard to find. All of the declarations are only available as scanned PDFs, sometimes handwritten, which makes it difficult to properly scrutinise the register."

They provide the pdfs and want help transcribing the register and flagging entries that are worth investigating further.

As they say this "can be used in conjunction with other datasets, such as records of donations, contracts, and travel expenses to improve political transparency in NSW."

Parliamentarians expenses and entitlements largely go under the radar in NSW, with annual total spend reported at year end in an appendix in the Assembly (pdf page 60) and Council (pdf page104) annual reports.

NSW is not alone-things are much the same in the other states.





 

Amid the stench of political donations, a whiff of reform

 Well in some places at least.

You may have missed the final report delivered to NSW Premier Baird on 24 December on options for long term reform of political donations by a panel chaired by Dr Kerry Schott.

By Martin Kingsley from Melbourne, Australia (Cashmoney) [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

NSW already has the strictest election funding laws in Australia, but the report puts forward 50 recommendations for legislative change and a new more vigorous approach to implementation of the law and oversight by the regulator.

 Nicole Hasham in the Sydney Morning Herald said the report revealed 

"a political donations system riven with loopholes, weaknesses and corruption opportunities. ...The panel ... found "systemic failures" in laws that govern electoral funding disclosure, spending, caps and bans. It called for an immediate review. The archaic, paper-based system of delayed donation disclosures should be replaced by an online system where disclosures were made in real time, allowing meaningful scrutiny of potential relationships between donations and government decisions, the panel said.

No media release from the Premier accompanied publication but Hasham reports Premier Baird said "the government would consider the report and respond before the March election" adding that it "is understood that most recommendations will be supported."Nothing from Labor so far but NSW Greens welcomed most recommendations
 
NSW with an election on 28 March, ten Liberal members of parliament sidelined by the party because of revelations about breach of the donation rules as a result of revelations in ICAC last year, and Labor carrying the dead weight of former ministers Eddie Obeid and Ian McDonald, the integrity issue is unlikely to sink from sight in NSW as is the fate of most Christmas period releases. 

Some Schott recommendations are subject to the outcome and impact of a High Court decision later in the year in the McCloy case which is challenging an existing NSW prohibition on donations by developers.

That case has the potential to slow down national action on political donations also, something the Panel regards as essential for meaningful reform. (Alas the Federal government is yet to show a flicker of interest in this or anything else on the integrity front.)

As long as the rules governing political donations differ across Australia, there is a risk that any NSW law will be circumvented. The evidence brought to light by the ICAC in Operation Spicer shows how the lack of regulation of political donations at the federal level can be exploited to avoid the bans and caps on political donations that apply in New South Wales. We note that the Premier has recently introduced a new anti-circumvention provision targeted at those who deliberately seek to avoid the election finance laws, as recommended by the Panel in its Interim Report. The federal structure of some political parties creates opportunities for avoiding NSW restrictions on political donations. We believe that the Premier should support greater co-ordination of election funding laws across jurisdictions. A co-ordinated approach to disclosure would be a useful start. We recommend that the Premier seek to put the issue on the agenda at COAG. We also recommend that the Premier report to the NSW Parliament on progress against implementation of our recommendations, to ensure that the current momentum for change is maintained.

Labor and others are pushing integrity and accountability issues in the Queensland campaign leading to the election there on 31 January, just prior to this conference  on the subject in Brisbane on 9 February. Plenty of big donations are being accepted by the LNP Newman government from companies pushing controversial resource developments, caps on donations have been scrapped and disclosure thresholds increased twelvefold.

Unlike NSW and Queensland, Victoria does not regulate political donations and disclosure except for a cap of $50,000 on donations from casino proprietors. But on the good news side perhaps the Andrews government includes Special Minister of State Gavin Jennings listed third in the cabinet line up who will oversee government transparency, accountability, integrity and public sector administration and reform, supported by the Department of Premier and Cabinet.

In addition, the department portfolio now includes providing support in relation to the Auditor-General, the Commissioner for Privacy and Data Protection, the Freedom of Information Commissioner, the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, the Local Government Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate, the Public Interest Monitor, the Victorian Electoral Commission, the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission, and the Victorian Inspectorate.

Political donations, lobbying, getting the BACC fit for purpose, and long overdue freedom of information reform have to be in there somewhere.

Australia for more foreign affairs transparency - in New York

Positive comments all round in a Lowy Institute assessment Australia in the UN Security Council including for a push for greater transparency in international dealings. On the home front next?

Australia’s efforts to promote openness over sanctions have been a part of a broader strategy to raise the Security Council’s transparency.‘Transparency’ is not the diplomatic pabulum that it might sound like. Always an exclusive club, the (permanent 5 members) have notably increased their grip on the Council in recent years, conducting most essential negotiations in private.[ See Bruno Stagno Ugarte et al., Security Council Working Methods: A Tale of Two Councils? (Security Council Report, March 2014).] This sidelines the non-permanent members and alienates states outside the Council. In mid-2012 an alliance of small states led by Switzerland launched a General Assembly resolution demanding greater openness, but the P5 put aside their Syrian differences to crush the initiative. As Australia joined the Council, the transparency advocates were still recovering from that fight. Despite the risks of offending the P5, Australia soon emerged as an advocate of transparency within the Council. It worked well with the “Accountability, Coherence and Transparency” (ACT) Group, a coalition of states formed in May 2013 to restart the fight for a more open Council after the 2012 debacle. A diplomat from one of the leading ACT members describes Australia as an “excellent” partner.

Same old, same old in South Australia

In preparation for an interview this morning with Radio Adelaide about the Hawke Freedom of Information review, and anticipating a couple of questions that didn't eventuate about South Australia, I had a quick look for an update on the local scene, and found-not much at all. 

SA stood to one side, along with the west, from the FOI reform movement of 2007-2010 that saw significant change at the national level and in Queensland, NSW and Tasmania. The SA FOI act of 1991 remains as it has always been since commencement 21 years ago and way short of a modern information access law that reflects 21st century expectations and norms.

In a recent reshuffle Premier Jay Weatherill assumed responsibility for the Public Sector and has announced political donation reform but is yet to mention transparency or open government as far as I can see. Tom Kenyon who had the job among others a year ago didn't seem well disposed to FOI but said something at the time about more pro-active publication. That may have been it.

The Ombudsman continues to haul some agencies back to toe the line when asked.

But it's the same old, same old in SA - an out of date law, limited publication requirements, the exclusions include parliament, no online publication of parliamentarians entitlements, no legislated requirement for publication of contracts (note in passing: no disclosure of payments to Lance Armstrong), no transparency regarding grants to industry, lobbying rules limited to registration for some but that's it, lack of leadership on openness and transparency, closed government culture, delay, high cost, limited resources, etc, etc. 

SA alone has an accredited FOI decision maker system, but I've not seen any evaluation of how that has worked.

With a year to go to the next state election, perhaps time for some pressure on the major parties to join The Greens Mark Parnell and Family First Robert Brokenshire in at least talking about transparency and open government?

If only Radio Adelaide had asked....

Immigration: "one hell of a job trying to manage this"

And that's just responding to questions. During a marathon Senate Estimates hearing Immigration and Citizenship Secretary on the Department's difficulties:

Mr Bowles : I accept that we need to improve our performance in this area. I just want to give some context, though, about what we are dealing with. We have actually seen a 500 per cent increase in questions on notice in the last couple of years. 

Senator Cash: Perhaps that reflects the percentage increase in the number of boats arriving.

Mr Bowles : I am not quite sure there is a correlation there, Senator, so I will keep moving. We received 647 questions on notice in the October supplementary budget estimates; 133 of them were taken on notice at the hearing and a further 500-odd were put just on the record for us to answer. That is obviously a significant issue for us. Basically, what I end up having to do is divert resources to try and answer all these questions. If you look at the calendar year for 2012, we answered 1,676 questions, and that is about 25 per cent more than any other department in the Commonwealth. We have also had to deal with 22 parliamentary inquiries and FOIs and all sorts of activities. I know it is no excuse, particularly, but it is one hell of a job trying to manage this. I accept and I acknowledge that there is a growing interest in our business, and all I can try to commit is that we will try and improve on this; but we do have to make sure that we get the right answer. We deal with 34 million border crossings and 4.5 million visa issues and all sorts of different things, and some of these questions go to quite specific issues. 

Later, a compliment-well, sort of:

Senator Abetz: Can I turn to the FOI documents that I received under cover of a letter of 8 February 2013. I commend the department for putting in grey those areas that were blocked out or redacted, because some departments are very kindly providing the redactions to us in white, so you do not know if a whole page or only half a page has been redacted. This methodology is very helpful to let us know exactly what has been redacted. 

Good government an issue in 2013?

With possibly 225 days to go, scandal the headline from Canberra and Sydney and both leaders saying "trust me", you never know. 

Not that Tony Abbott at the Press Club yesterday did any better than the Prime Minister the day before on this front. Neither at this stage sees the need for a good government agenda or plans or initiatives regarding integrity, accountabilty and transparency, parliamentary reform and increased public participation. And perhaps wonder why voters don't take them seriously on the "trust me" plea.

The Abbott speech included just a nod to democracy and the people:

Government is important – my colleagues and I are in the parliament because it matters and because we care about our country – but, in a democracy, the people must come first. My colleagues and I want to reach out to all the decent people of our country to reassure you that government can have your best interests at heart – rather than just its own survival.

 The  Q&A didn't take things further.

PM pre-occupied with governing, but not with the how

News.com.au

The Prime Minister at the National Press Club yesterday frequently referred to "governing" but in the speech and later questions had nothing to say about her governance agenda. So

 "Today, I will outline my approach to this work of governing .........This is the plan for 2013. A plan to govern.....We must get on with the business of governing.....  Governing first, electioneering second..... There’s plenty for this Government to be getting on with – plenty of work to do for our nation. I will devote the days of governing to that work and then, at the time now fixed, to asking the Australian people to endorse my plan to keep building a strong, fair, smart nation.

The PM kept it going during the Q&A that followed:

So for me this is about governing and getting the job done and that's what you will see me doing.

Getting the job done is well and good. In a democracy how, is equally important.

 Plans for improving democratic practices didn't rate a mention.

In response to a question about the low level of public confidence in our institutions, and whether parliamentary reform was part of the agenda, the PM simply blamed the opposition for the chaos and left it to Minister Albanese to deal with Christopher Pyne's new found interest in improving things. Two of many issues still in the in-tray are a Code of Conduct for parliamentarians and action on many Belcher Committee recommendations regarding parliamentary entitlements that have been gathering dust for years.

No grand statement of intention from the PM that "My government will govern in ways that seek to engage and encourage public participation in a new spirit in a tried and true democracy." 

Or lowering the sights just a little, "My government will govern in  accordance with the highest standards of integrity, transparency and accountability" followed by specific references to a national anti corruption plan, a national version of the state corruption investigations bodies, whistleblower protection legislation, electoral funding and lobbying reform. No follow on from her 2010 commitment to "let the sunshine in" or a flicker of interest in lining up with G20 friends in the Open Government Partnership "a global effort to make governments better... (for) more transparent, effective and accountable governments -- with institutions that empower citizens and are responsive to their aspirations."

No mention of that ALRC 2008 recommendation that the exemption enjoyed by political parties from the Privacy Act should be removed. Let alone opening up another front by taking on most media organisations over Finkelstein, the related parts of the Convergence Review, and the privacy cause of action for a serious and unwarranted invasion of privacy. Submissions in response to an issues paper on the latter closed 14 months ago. Not a peep since.)

Every big government decision in 2013 and many smaller ones as well were always going to be made with one eye on the Opposition and the other on the media to see how it might play in voter-land. As a result of yesterday this hasn't changed. Both eyes will be fixed on the calendar at 14 September while counting from here on.

The Opposition are mainly silent or against just about everything mentioned above. Both government and opposition keep saying 'who can you trust' without engendering any.
The Greens and the independents have good government agendas, but what leverage in this long, long year remains to be seen.