Certifying entitlement claims too much for busy parliamentarians particularly Bob Katter

ABC picks up on Senator Conroy and Bob Katter not certifying Department of Finance entitlement expenditure for years-noted here four weeks ago. 

Senator Conroy could hear feet in the corridor and has now signed for expenditure back to 2011.

Bob Katter's defence amounts to are you kidding, I run two offices you know....

"More than 100 other MPs have failed to sign their half-yearly certification at least once."

Certification details are listed for each reporting period.

'Restoring trust' should encompass parliamentarians' entitlements

The brouhaha in recent days over use of travel allowance and other entitlements to fund travel to a wedding is yet another reminder of the unsatisfactory nature of the Federal parliamentarian entitlements system. 

A long, long time ago in a galaxy that seems far, far away the Belcher review, completed in 2010, in a report released a year later recommended changes that led the then Labor government to nod. And in large part proceed to bury. 

Not that Belcher had all the answers.

But in any event, four years after that committee was apponted, here we go again....

The Sydney Morning Herald editorial  'The rules on MPs' expense claims need to be rewritten' argues for clarifying the rules in the light of these expense claims - the job to be undertaken by someone other than the politicians.

Similar ambiguity arises regarding the Publication Allowance, apparently used to buy all sorts of interesting books in the case of Senator Brandis. As unearthed by Stephen Murray purchases included lives of the Popes, histories of Byzantium, Berlin and the Spanish Civil War, essays and writings by Orwell and Nietzsche, a collection of Isaiah Berlin’s letters, and a survey of the life and works of a Scottish colourist. The entitlement is for the costs of purchasing publications 'for purposes related to Parliamentary, electorate or official business' in a senator's case, subject to a yearly limit, currently around $5000.

But vague or ambiguous rules are just one element of the crazy quilt system.

Most payments to or on behalf of parliamentarians are made by Finance. The payments, that include travel and publications, simply require a signed certification that use is within the rules, and are published on-line every six months. A welcome acknowledgement of the importance of accountability and transparency. But publication occurs nowhere near real time, the latest for the period July-December 2012.

Digging deeper in Finance beyond what is published about use of entitlements is possible under the Freedom of Information Act. But good luck- in this recent case a still unnamed parliamentarian or, since the election former parliamentarian, designated 'AK' in the decision has managed to put off the evil day of disclosure of information about use of entitlements for a year and counting.

Other entitlements are paid by the relevant parliamentary department, the Department of House of Representatives or the Department of the Senate. In addition payments beyond the standard entitlement are made to or on behalf of office holders such as the Speaker of the House - Mr Slipper's coat and tails and a sizeable tucker bill provided a glimpse - and the President of the Senate. None of these payments are routinely published on line.

In a staggering stampede in the wrong direction the Parliament legislated in June to remove the parliamentary departments from the Freedom of Information Act. Ignoring the fact that this was an issue within the terms of reference of a statutory review of the operation of the FOI act completed in April. The report released in August recommended the parliamentary departments should be covered by the act in relation to documents of an administrative nature. No one on either side has said a word since.

Then on behalf of and in support of parliamentarians who are ministers additional payments are made by their departments. None of this information is published.

As Professor McMillan observed in AK:

Parliamentary entitlements are publicly funded, administered and scrutinised. There are strong public interest considerations that support transparency concerning these matters, and in particular, transparency concerning whether there has been compliance with government guidelines. Members of Parliament would reasonably expect public scrutiny of their use of Parliamentary entitlements occurring at any time during their Parliamentary career.  Parliamentary entitlements are publicly funded, administered and scrutinised. There are strong public interest considerations that support transparency concerning these matters, and in particular, transparency concerning whether there has been compliance with government guidelines. Members of Parliament would reasonably expect public scrutiny of their use of Parliamentary entitlements occurring at any time during their Parliamentary career.

Simplification and transparency along the lines of a single site monthly online publication of details of all payments and expenditure are what is needed. Putting it up on the internet and making it searchable by member along the lines of this Scottish Parliament system would be a step in the right direction.

In case you were wondering about related matters, commitments by the previous government to create the position of Integrity Commissioner came to nothing. Ditto a proposed Code of Conduct for parliamentarians. 

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, Steven Ciobo told Parliament when in Opposition that these sort of feel good things are a waste of time:

"The reason that there is still behaviour that people frown upon is that, fundamentally, it comes down to individual choice. Simply adding one more document to a pile of documents and simply having one additional public servant called an integrity commissioner is not going to change a thing. Anyone who believes that it will is delusional. It has not changed things in other jurisdictions. It is not as if in the United Kingdom or in the state of Queensland, where these types of vehicles exist, there is this great love of the parliament or towards parliamentarians. No. The same problems exist in those jurisdictions. This is nothing more than a feel-good exercise that will deliver no net tangible benefit whatsoever."

Finally if Canberra disappoints, unfortunately there is no reassurance in the state parliaments where things are even worse.

Trust, where art thou?

Parliament outside the FOI zone... because it always has been

Or, well, because we thought it was..

I was in touch with my local member about the blanket exemption from the Freedom of Information Act legislated by the parliament for the parliamentary departments that support the operations of that august body with a budget allocation of around $170 million.

My email, 3 June:

Mr (Malcolm) Turnbull,
I'm glad common sense prevailed regarding the party funding proposal. But I'm staggered that in 11 minutes in the House last Wednesday the blanket FOI exemption for the three parliamentary departments went through with nods from both sides. This is my take. Would be interested to know what you think.
http://foi-privacy.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/bipartisan-support-for-overkill-and.html#.UaxGweskgdM
 Peter Timmins.

Not a peep until this, at 8.35pm on the quiet Saturday night just passed, six weeks later:

"thanks for your note Peter – the exemptions were of longstanding or thought to be.
All the best
malcolm."

Good that he probably read my email. Courteous that he replied. 

But unpersuasive as to reasons, particularly not explaining the rush to legislate beyond what the departments themselves saw as necessary, and in advance of the Hawke report that looked into scope of the act issues among others. I could go on:
the more general argument for instance that the accountability and transparency framework should apply to all government agencies in principle; the parliament's failure to legislate for an integrity commissioner; that some of the resources are spent on entitlements and support for members and senators; that FOI coverage of parliament is accepted in the UK, Scotland, and Ireland, among others; and that the Australian Law Reform Commission and former clerk of the Senate Harry Evans to name just two supported extension of the act to the departments. And the then Prime Minister's 2010, "let's draw back the curtains and let the sun shine in; let our parliament be more open than it ever was before.."

But you've heard it all before.

NSW Parliament still in pre-internet transparency world

Kate McClymont in Saturday's Fairfax Media

"For years before he left New South Wales Parliament in mid-2011, Labor powerbroker Eddie Obeid entered ''not applicable'' in the section of his pecuniary interest declaration asking whether he had received income from a trust. But the accuracy of those declarations are being queried following sensational revelations in a corruption inquiry this week about the millions of dollars that have flowed through six Obeid family trusts, including millions that came to the Obeid family as proceeds from an allegedly corrupt government tender.

If anyone had been looking during those years the "N/A" entries might have been noted then as passing strange. But few would seem to have bothered to trundle down to Macquarie Street on a weekday between 10 and 4 to inspect the register available for public inspection only at those times.(Fact sheet 07 - The register of pecuniary interests - Parliament of NSW pdf)

Publication on-line is a 21st century boost to transparency and accountability that is yet to fully register there.  

There was no mention of it just recently when access to the register was discussed in the NSW Parliament. 

I'm not aware there has ever been a response to this recommendation 10 years ago by the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption:

"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."

Regulation of secondary employment for Members of the NSW Legislative Assembly - Report to the speaker of the Legislative Assembly (September 2003) (pdf) [Recommendation 11]

Access to the register online would be convenient for the public, save staff time dealing with anyone who did bother to ask to see the register, heighten the chances that disclosures would be more accurate and kept up to date, and bring to public attention sometime sooner than years later, obvious gaps or failures to disclose. (Mr Obeid was always said to be among the richest members throughout his time in parliament.)

In a welcome development, the Federal parliament these days publishes the Senate Register and House of Representatives Register online. 

As parliaments do elsewhere in various forms, for example

Queensland

The House of Commons

The House of Lords

Scottish Parliament

New Zealand.

The NSW registers aren't the only important documents that sit in musty folders in Parliament House waiting for someone to take a look that should be online. In all our state parliaments, so too do documents relating to payment of entitlements, and other details of support for parliamentarians provided at taxpayers expense.

 Let's get with it, folks. 

"New-fangled ideas" about use of the internet for transparency and accountability purposes are here to stay.

(As Sean Nicholls reports today, Labor opposition leader John Robertson didn't get far in proposing to his colleagues that second jobs for parliamentarians should be banned and interest disclosures should extend to spouse interests as well. Really.)

NSW parliament disclosures fine-by 1689 standards

The Sydney Morning Herald published my letter today (scan down to "Publish MP disclosures online") with an edit that makes the final reference to 1689 even more obscure. Here's the text as submitted, with links. The letter was in response to Linton Besser and Kate McClymont at the weekend" Inquiry opens Pandora's box of extensive dealings"
about Eddie Obeid which kicks off " He is not the man his bare pecuniary interest register has depicted."

"The O'Farrell government took action in parliament recently to legislate to remove doubt as to the ability of the ICAC to consider and make findings in relation to the Registers of Disclosures of Members of Parliament. Entries in the name Obeid and Macdonald are now proving interesting and illuminating.

The President of the Legislative Council had queried whether parliamentary privilege, "by operation of the 1689 Bill of Rights," applied to the registers. As the Premier explained, the legislation was necessary to allow the registers to be accessed and utilised by the ICAC "even though they are already publicly available and open to public scrutiny."

The registers are available for inspection between 10 am and 4 pm if you find yourself in Macquarie St on a weekday, but not otherwise. A few journalists occasionally bring some entries to the attention of a wider audience.

Premier O'Farrell told parliament that scrutiny of the registers by ICAC "will not impact adversely on the business of Parliament. It will not inhibit debate. It will not undermine freedom of speech. It will not impede any activities that members of Parliament undertake in the exercise of their representative and parliamentary duties. To the contrary, what it will do is to enhance the integrity and standing of this place. It will further reinforce why it is important for all members to make full and proper disclosure in accordance with the 1983 constitution regulation."

True. But that applies in spades if the registers were to be published on-line, close to real time. With the potential added bonus that more eyeballs might ensure we are aware of sources of gifts and income from second jobs as well as the mysteries and discrepancies.

The same applies to payments of allowances and entitlements and other expenditure by the parliament for and on behalf of members. At present the global amount paid to each is published but buried away in appendices to the annual reports of the departments of the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council. No details of payments made are provided and the reports can relate to expenditure incurred up to 12 months previously.

The payments are a small part of the $139 million allocated to the parliament in the 2012-13 budget. Parliament is not subject to right to information legislation that applies to state government agencies. The then presiding officers waved off the Rees government when it made an initial inquiry about taking such a step in 2009.

Time for change, Premier.

After all it's 2012 not 1689.

Peter Timmins.

As readers will know the Commonwealth parliamentary departments are subject to FOI - for the moment at least.

Do it yourself publication of interests best for accuracy

Those cheers in August for the UTS/Fairfax project that put the Register of Interests in searchable form online toned down this week when Senator Faulkner during Department of the Senate Estimates referred to 10 errors in his entry. Senator Faulkner had drawn attention to this in the Senate on 12 September- some were relatively minor transcription errors, others just wrong:

"I can assure the Senate that I am not a member of the New South Wales Traders Foundation. I am, however, a member of the New South Wales Teachers Federation. I can assure the Senate—and this will come as a relief to the good parishioners of this church, I am sure—that I am not a member of the Clovercrest Baptist Church. Not only am I not a worshipper at the Clovercrest Baptist Church; I can also assure the Senate that I have not become a worshipper twice, which is the suggestion on this particular website. I can also assure the Senate that I have no investment properties, even though the website says I have. I can also inform the Senate that I do not receive a DFRDB pension, although the Herald website says I do. I can also inform the Senate that I do not have, nor have I ever had, a family trust which is bracketed as not applicable after July 2011; in my case it is not applicable before July 2011. Nor do I have life insurance, nor do I own a motor vehicle."

I don't know if other parliamentarians checked the accuracy of what was published- Clerk of the Senate Dr Laing told Senator Faulkner no one else had brought errors to attention.

Senator Faulkner suggested it might be better all round if the Senate itself made its database of pecuniary interests, currently hand written hard copy provided by senators, "a little more user-friendly and searchable". Dr Laing agreed the Committee of Senators' Interests should take a look but significant resources, in short supply, would need to be allocated. 

I'm sure that's true but it is 2012, after all. 

As Senator Rhiannon has raised on several occassions the Scottish parliament does much better and is an admirable model. As I wrote six years ago it took a major scandal there to propel expense disclosures into the 21st century.

Senator Faulkner's questions on Monday follow:

NSW Parliament should do better on openness

Shadow NSW minister for transport Penny Sharpe may have been the only politician in Australia to have said anything about the International Day of Democracy and the Declaration on Parliamentary Openness when she spoke in NSW Parliament last week-text extracted below.

While noting all sorts of things being done elsewhere to open parliament to the people, and the fact that the state parliaments have not been helpful to Open Australia (see this 2009 post on that), Ms Sharpe's only comment on things close to home was:

 "Here in New South Wales we can and we should do better."

Indeed.

For starters by publishing online details of payments to or on behalf of parliamentarians at present buried away in annual reports, travel, and the interests register, particularly gifts and secondary sources of income for those who have other jobs. Publishing on-line papers tabled in parliament following Queensland's lead should also be on the list. How about extending the GIPA act to cover the parliamentary departments in line with developments in Tasmania and the national capital? We could go on....

Hansard doesn't record any hear, hears when Ms Sharpe finished speaking.

Polly perks: who to lead from 'clunky' to dynamic online world?

Email exchanges with my local member. Ask your Federal MP.
(And where to start with the states?)

Mr Turnbull's email: Malcolm.Turnbull.MP@aph.gov.au

 3 September 2012 
To: Turnbull, Malcolm (MP)
Subject: Transparency and probity

Mr Turnbull,
I would be happy to publish any comment you would like to make on this blogpost:
http://www.foi-privacy.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/polly-perks-lobbying-probity-sunshine.html
Thanks.

Peter Timmins

(Constituent)

13 September

Thanks Peter, I agree the current system is pretty clunky  and hard to follow. I would have no problem were it to be upgraded to a dynamic online register of some kind. Regards.
Malcolm

13 September

Mr Turnbull, Thanks for your response. Any chance of a shift from "would have no problem were it to be" to "will propose and push for change to"?  Peter.

Polly perks, lobbying, probity, sunshine...

From Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald further instalment about the scribbled system of disclosure of parliamentarians' interests and extras on the side:

An Australian National University professor who has written extensively on accountability, Richard Mulgan, says transparency is vital. "There is a very strong court of public opinion when it comes to parliamentarians," he says. "This is where transparency seems to me to be key. Politicians do live in a glass house and it's harder for them to get away with things."
But the present regime of disclosures presents many hurdles to accountability - not least because the forms are scratched in handwriting on unsearchable pages that must be examined individually. In the words of John Uhr, a professor of politics at ANU, the present system of disclosures "has still got a kind of 'club rule' about it, where the information is registered with the club official for club purposes"....
Australia's parliamentarians are not subject to many of the checks and balances that govern behaviour of parliamentarians in other Western democracies...Most politicians who accept gifts and lavish trips don't have to meet standards expected of federal public servants, whose behaviour must comply with a code of conduct.... The requirements for politicians to reveal duchessing and the like are based on a list of necessary disclosures set down in 1984 for members of the House of Representatives and 1994 for members of the Senate, and hardly changed since. The lists of disclosure are often obscure, poorly framed and inconsistent between the two houses... Confidence in the overall state of disclosures - and their ability to provide the "glass house" envisaged by Professor Mulgan - is not helped by omissions, opaque or illegible reporting and silliness.

Reminder: Prime Minister Gillard on forming government in August 2010 :

So, let's draw back the curtains and let the sun shine in; let our parliament be more open than it ever was before.

Reminder: the  Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee in March 2012 concluded everything was rosy with how the current regulation of lobbyists and lobbying in the form of a registration requirement is framed and works in practice. No recommendations for improvement according to the majority. The Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon in a dissenting report strongly disagreed and made eight recommendations for major change.

(Update: Senator Rhiannon reiterated the call last week for publication of "full details of MP’s interests, entitlements and perks online rather than unsearchable formats and paper records gathering dust in Canberra.")

Reminder: a  review of the system of parliamentarians entitlements commenced in September 2009 with the appointment of the Belcher committee, following critical findings about accountability and transparency by the Auditor General. The Committee Report came into the public domain when tabled in Parliament in March 2011, close to a year after it had been completed and handed to the government. "We are committed to reform, openness and transparency to ensure that we maintain the trust and confidence of the Australian people,” Senator Ludwig, the minister then responsible had said at the time the Committee was appointed.

Some improvements have been made since 2009 in public reporting on payments made by the Department of Finance separately from the Belcher review process, but that's just part of the picture- and the parliamentary departments are subject to the FOI act at least for the moment. Minister Gray in March 2011in announcing that two (of 16) Belcher committee recommendations had been acted upon, said the remaining recommendations had been referred to the Remuneration Tribunal, although some have nothing to do with that body. The minister said nothing then or since about when the tribunal should complete its work or when if at all the government will act on the recommendations.

Reminder: Speaker Peter Slipper and President of the Senate Senator John Hogg have said nothing on any of these issues.

Reminder: members of Federal (and state) parliament were rated very high or high for honesty and ethics in the Roy Morgan Survey of Professionals May 2012 by 10% of those surveyed- just ahead of the last three of 30 categories, real estate agents, advertising people and used car salesmen.

Ah, you've got to love 'em.

Paper pile of polly perks Strike Two

Today's Fairfax revelations from that joint project to shine some light on gifts and hospitality given to federal parliamentarians include that 70 have failed to disclose complimentary premium Foxtel or Austar packages to their electorate offices from the Australian Subscription Television and Radio Association (ASTRA), and only 32 disclosed a gift by Commercial Radio Australia of digital radios given to all 226. Micro detail perhaps, but nice to see the UTS journalism students involved take a bow today: Lawrence Bull, Nathan Coates, Paolo Hooke, Frances Mao, Lillian Radulova and Nina Young.

(Update In the Senate on 12 September Senator Faulkner drew attention to a number of errors in the published version of his declaration of interests some of which were said to be errors in transcription and others false entries.)

Those non-disclosures sit alongside yesterday's reports of declared gifts previously hidden in piles of handwritten paper, as summarised in The Age that Israel and Israeli lobby groups wooed politicians with 44 fully or partly funded trips in the past two years, followed by Taiwan (16 trips) and the Tibetan government-in-exile (five). Courtesy of Qantas the leading corporate ''benefactor''

all 226  enjoy free membership of the Chairman's Lounge and Qantas has provided more than 200 free flight upgrades - of 289 recorded in total - worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Gina Rinehart's Hancock Prospecting was the second-biggest provider of trips at a time when the mining tax was a hot issue. Billionaire Andrew Forrest's Fortescue Metals Group is another ''generous'' miner. Technology company Huawei, which was excluded from National Broadband Network tendering because of security concerns, has taken Coalition frontbenchers Julie Bishop, Andrew Robb and Bronwyn Bishop on tours to China. Two members of a Senate committee considering a white paper that will determine billions in defence spending, Mark Bishop and David Johnston, accepted a charter flight from England and accommodation from French shipbuilder DCNS to inspect its factory. As members of the parliamentary diabetes support group, Judi Moylan and Mal Washer accepted a trip to the World Diabetes Leadership Forum in Copenhagen paid by drug company Novo Nordisk.

In editorials today both The Age and the SMH remind our representatives of the standards we should expect of those in public life. As The Age in MPs should slam the door shut on influence peddling puts it:

Let's be clear about the conflicts of interest here. Were such benefits given to members of a company board, public committee or a councillor at the lowest tier of government, they would have to declare them and excuse themselves from decisions affecting the provider. MPs do not excuse themselves from parliamentary debates, committee deliberations and votes, so must observe a higher standard. They ought not accept travel, accommodation or gifts that create a risk, real or perceived, of compromising their decisions as public representatives. If the givers' intentions are not to influence political decision-makers by undemocratic means, what other motive is there?

And apart from the probity issues, information about who gets to chew an influential ear about what is most times itself a matter of significant public interest but not something our laws require to be made public.

The Sydney Morning Herald in A shadow darkens on one side of the digital divide concludes on a theme familiar to readers here:

The Herald/UTS project should not, in truth, be necessary. Filling in documents of such public importance by hand, and submitting and publishing them only in that form, is no longer adequate. Indeed, it looks like a passive form of obstructionism. They should be filed online, and made available automatically for all to see.

Digging through paper pile to identify pollies perks

All power to the Sydney Morning Herald and University of Technology Sydney journalism students for the joint effort in compiling, and Fairfax papers for publishing, a searchable database of federal parliamentarians free trips, gifts and donors from the pile of handwritten (!) declarations of interest submitted over the past two years. (Open Australia had a crack at compiling then updating the register but not since 2010.)

(Update In the Senate on 12 September Senator Faulkner drew attention to a number of errors in the published version of his declaration of interests some of which were said to be errors in transcription and others false entries.)

But what to say about the parliamentary authorities who preside over this 19th century attempt at accountability where paper records are available for inspection in Canberra during business hours but handwriting decyphering skills and loads of time are needed to make sense of records that otherwise remain unsearchable?

All this apart from the probity questions raised by Professor Mulgan and Professor Uhr.

As to the state parliaments, don't even ask.

Can anyone explain why something like the Scottish Parliament online publication of details of interests and expenses is beyond us?

Or what has happened to the bulk of the Belcher committee recommendations regarding entitlements?

Guess the status quo suits some in our midst.

Trust us, we're parliamentarians

Federal parliamentarians have learnt or are in the process of learning to live with the scrutiny that comes with public access to information about the use of entitlements, with speaker Peter Slipper the most notable example. But their state parliamentary colleagues are a different matter. Generally they receive or spend money or have money spent on their behalf under opaque arrangements that show no sign of 21st century standards of accountability and transparency.  The administration of all our parliaments should be subject to the same standards as any other government agency. That is, subject to freedom of information law, but these days with information about use of entitlements published in a timely fashion on the internet.

Jebulon

Victoria, Queensland and NSW provide examples of current impenetrable practices. Payments to parliamentarians in these jurisdictions are made by parliamentary departments, unlike Canberra where most but not all are the responsibility of an executive government agency subject to the FOI act, the Department of Finance and Deregulation (and the act for the present at least applies to the parliamentary departments).

In Victoria the administrative departments of the parliament established under the Parliamentary Administration Act would appear not to be agencies subject to the FOI act. In Queensland "the parliamentary service established by the Parliamentary Service Act 1988" is specifically listed among entities not subject to the RTI act (Schedule 2). In NSW the legislative basis for the NSW departments of assembly, council and parliamentary services is obscure but they don't appear to be agencies or public authorities. In 2009 the then presiding officers rejected suggestions in an ombudsman's report that the parliament should be covered by the new FOI act. The GIPA act  lists the Legislative Council, the Legislative Assembly, the office of a member of the council or assembly or the President or Speaker as bodies that are not public authorities or public offices for the purposes of  the act.)

This is the picture as best I can make out. Those newshounds at Fairfax and News publications in Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney and other watchdogs could do us a service and push this along. Very high or high ratings for honesty and ethics for Federal and state members of parliament in the Roy Morgan Survey of Professionals May 2012: a tie at 10%. Just ahead of the last three of 30 categories, real estate agents, advertising people and used car salesmen.

Sun shines on parliamentarians' expenditure

Yan Zhang

In cold, wintry Canberra (not pictured) at least.

The Department of Finance and Deregulation has published reports of expenditure against entitlements it administers for parliamentarians and former parliamentarians, and overseas study travel reports, this batch for the period July to December 2011.

For those still looking for evidence that transparency can be a useful compliance tool, proof in the form of the associated list of certifications that expenditure was properly incurred, consistent with the rules.  Almost a full house with just a handful of exceptions including Minister Senator Conroy and Bob Katter MP.  When Finance commenced this publication practice in January the list of non-certfiers for the relevant period extended to 100 names, dropping quickly thereafter. (I'm still wondering why certification is voluntary.)

On the related issue of information on payments by the parliamentary departments (none pro-actively published to date) and the comment by Attorney General Roxon's spokesman that FOI coverage was an anomaly that needed fixing, not a word said or question raised in parliament in this session, and they've now packed up for the six week winter recess. A sign things should stay as they are?

Contrast sunny Canberra with the states-a dark subject I'm warming to, hopefully next week.

I'm feeling sorry for Nicola Roxon

Well just a titch.

The Attorney General's re-entry into FOI-land with her fix the "anomaly" comment following publicity that the act covers the three parliamentary departments, coincided with the Sydney Morning Herald publishing information some days later about payments by the Department of House of Representatives to Speaker Peter Slipper. The comment by Ms Roxon's spokesman appears to have been made in the context of questions raised by the Australian FOI Editor Sean Parnell in a follow up concerning scope of the act, and seemingly was not related to the SMH Slipper story.  But the two have been conflated since in the media, public comments and cartoons (Moir for example) with the the Attorney General being pilloried for considering options to block access entirely to information about parliamentarians' expenditure.

This clearly isn't so, for reasons that follow. The timing was terrible and the attorney general's point of view (with respect etc) that this is an anomaly that needs fixing, is disappointing and unfortunate to say the least. As argued in "Say it isn't so" there are strong reasons why the parliamentary departments should be subject, give or take, to the same degree of transparency and accountability as other government agencies. Information about parliamentarians' entitlements is just part of a bigger accountability and transparency picture.

The main reason for the debate going off in this direction, apart from the timing issue, is that given the complex system of administration of entitlements and the half light thrown on the detail, it is easy to get things muddled. The system is still waiting for reform years on from recommendations that would nudge transparency in the right direction, although hardly as far as it needs to go. Special Minister of State Gary Gray and the various presiding officers of parliament (one of whom now of course is the same Mr Slipper) should carry the can on that. Reform in this area was a case study in slow motion a year ago. Now it's a masterclass.

To elaborate on entitlements and the transparency issues..

Letter writers eye on FOI

More letters in the Sydney Morning Herald today about Freedom of Information and the Federal Parliament.

Nick Franklin of Katoomba is a master:
  

Mr Slipper's coat and tails: $1248.

Mr Slipper's tucker bill: $8500.

Mr Slipper's travel expenses: $18,000.

Publication of the above: priceless.

Two more follow-and (Update) plenty of comment as well on Paul Farrell's article in New Matilda

State parliaments far less transparent than Canberra

With a fair degree of outrage running about any plan to re-establish an exemption for the parliamentary departments from the Commonwealth Freedom of Information Act (see letters in the SMH today, copied below), folks out there should save some for our state leaders where the situation is even more opaque.

In most, the state parliament is its own paymaster with the fine detail of what administrators do with public money and payments to parliamentarians hidden behind a specific exemption from the FOI/Right to Information Act. 

Much of what our Federal parliamentarians receive is paid out by the Department of Finance and Deregulation, well and truly subject to FOI, with much published online these days.The current kerfuffle in Canberra is about separate payments made by the parliament itself. 

At state level it's a far darker story.

Tasmania's RTI act extends to information held by the parliament regarding matters of an administrative nature, but I don't know what is published there about payments to  parliamentarians. Elsewhere it's no go.

NSW is typical-both houses are specifically excluded from the RTI act (Schedule 1 Clause 2(3)). 

In round figures the NSW parliament is allocated $160 million a year. Exactly what is spent on and for parliamentarians isn't clear. The only published information for payments are global figures for categories of annual sums paid to each member buried away in appendices to the annual reports, the latest here at page 80 for the Department of the Legislative Assembly 2010-2011 pdf-Appendix G) and page 133 for the Legislative Council (Annual Report 2010/2011 pdf-Appendix 2).
.

When the issue of the exemption was raised in the context of FOI reform in NSW it fell to the ground as the then presiding officers ran up arguments that don't hold water including that sufficient public scrutiny comes from publication of these same annual reports.

In 2010 after an allowance scandal, ICAC recommended the NSW Parliament look at its anti-corruption measures regarding payments to parliamentarians. ICAC's general approach to anti-corruption highlights, ahem, the need for proper accountability, and appropriate transparency.

The South Australian Parliament publishes online an annual report on members interests and an annual report on travel by individual members, although not even close to real time.

None of this is good enough. Reserve some of that outrage for your state parliament. Give your state MP's office a chance to explain-I'm all ears.

Today's SMH letters follow.

Parliament beyond FOI reach: Attorney Roxon, say it isn't so

Matthew Moore and Linton Besser in The Sydney Morning Herald (published also in other Fairfax papers) today report on what appears to be the first Freedom of Information release of documents by the Department of the House of Representatives, detailing payments to and on behalf of Speaker Peter Slipper including expenses of office for the period to 30 April. I was happy to contribute a quote.

This "first" arises as a result of news last month that Australian Information Commissioner Professor John McMillan had cut through years of denial and uncertainty to rule that departments of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and parliamentary services are subject to the FOI act. Followed last week by Attorney General Roxon indicating the government is "currently considering its options to correct this anomaly."

The SMH may have achieved a first and last at the same time if amending legislation to put the parliamentary departments beyond the scope of FOI is on the way.

Say it isn't so Attorney. 

FOI for parliamentary departments is no anomaly, a deviation from the norm. It is what we should expect from any government agency. More pointedly, as far as Parliament is concerned, Prime Minister Gillard put it well when she said in 2010 "let our parliament be more open than it ever was before."

I'm sure it hasn't escaped your attention that parliament and parliamentarians are struggling a bit with integrity issues these days. Arguments for less rather than more transparency should make interesting reading. Public reaction more so.

Regardless of the recent and perhaps unexpected realisation behind the scenes (in the context of making sure the Parliamentary Budget Office was exempt from the act, an Opposition pre-requisite to even consider playing ball), that the departments are subject to FOI, you know it makes good policy sense for government agencies to be subject to the highest standards of accountability and transparency.

For all the reasons you could roll out without even glancing at a departmental briefing note- the fundamental importance of transparency and accountability in a democratic society, how public scrutiny is an essential anti-corruption measure, the government's Open Government Declaration of 2010, and the Prime Minister's words that fateful September day:"let's draw back the curtains and let the sun shine in; let our parliament be more open than it ever was before."

 In addition:

FOI transparency and accountability for parliamentary departments an "anomaly"?

Well, according to the Attorney General, it seems so.

Sean Parnell reports in The Australian today that the departments of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and parliamentary services are understood to have challenged the OAIC interpretation that they are subject to the Freedom of Information Act, have taken the issue up with Attorney General Roxon, and that she supports their view that the act was not intended to extend to these bodies:

"It has been long-accepted practice that the parliamentary departments are exempt from FOI," a spokesman for Ms Roxon said yesterday. "The government is currently considering its options to correct this anomaly."

This will be interesting, at a time when regard for politicians and parliament is at a low ebb, and "integrity" in public life in some respects at least seems missing in action. And when parliamentarians are only asked "voluntarily" to certify that use of entitlements is in accordance with the rules, and 52 still haven't done so for the period January-June last year.

The Greens Senator Rhiannon has fired off a media release this morning expressing concern about what may be coming:

 “Public money is what keeps the House of Representative and the Senate functioning and the public have a right to know how that money is spent. Parliament should not be beyond the reach of FOI...“Greater disclosure of the workings of parliament and the work of MPs is critical to a healthy democracy...“The Australian Greens have welcomed the news that the Australian Information Commissioner has found that parliament is subject to FOI laws, and that has been the case for the past decade...“While it is good news that the FOI laws apply to parliament, the information still needs to be made more accessible for the public. All parliamentary department websites should include up to date, easily searchable records of expenditure by MPs,” Senator Rhiannon said.

Couldn't agree more-that raises the unacted upon recommendations of the Belcher committee report as well.

But of course all it needs is for the major parties simply to vote together to amend the law to put the parliamentary departments beyond the reach of the FOI act. The opposition when in government between 1996 and 2007 did nothing to advance openness, but are yet to say anything on this one.

However while the OAIC opinion came as a surprise, arguing that the parliamentary departments should be exempt from FOI should require at least passing attention to the following:

1. The Australian Law Reform Commission recommendation in Report 77, December 1995, that the parliamentary departments be made subject to the FOI Act. The relevant section of the report reads:

1.8 The parliamentary departments are currently excluded from the coverage of the FOI Act.[23] In 1979 the Senate Standing Committee expressed the view that the 'parliamentary departments should be encouraged to act as if the legislation were applicable to them'.[24] DP 59 proposed that the parliamentary departments should be brought within the scope of the FOI Act on the basis that documents that warrant protection would be adequately protected by the exemption provisions, for example s 46 (parliamentary privilege).[25] A number of submissions, including that of the Clerk of the Senate, support the proposal.[26] The Department of the Senate has, in any case, always acted as though it were subject to the FOI Act, releasing documents unless they would have fallen within an exemption. In contrast the Department of Parliamentary Reporting Staff considers that it should remain outside the Act because it does not have a public policy role or provide services to the public. It claims that extending the FOI Act to the parliamentary departments could expose them to lengthy and costly legal challenges in respect of material they would claim to be exempt under s 46.[27] The Department of the Parliamentary Librarian also opposes extending the Act to the parliamentary departments for similar reasons.[28] The Review is not persuaded by these arguments. It remains convinced, particularly in light of the experience of the Department of the Senate, that there is no justification for the parliamentary departments to be excluded from the Act and that being subject to the Act will not cause any greater inconvenience for them than is caused to other agencies subject to the Act. Accordingly, it recommends that the parliamentary departments be made subject to the FOI Act.

2. Why the law should apply to the executive and judicial branch (in respect of matters of an administrative nature) but not the agencies that support the work of the legislative branch.

3. Why the Federal Parliament should remain outside the act while one jurisdiction that engaged in a wholesale review of the kind yet to be undertaken in Canberra, Tasmania, extended its act to cover state parliament on matters of an administrative nature.

4. Why the parliament should be excluded while respected bodies that promote accountability and transparency internationally such as the Carter Center advocate as a standard that all three branches of government should be subject to FOI law. The Australian FOI act was marked down on this in an international survey last year that saw it ranked 39 of 89 laws examined. And why in contrast to the home of Westminster, and elsewhere  where parliaments are covered, our's should be beyond the scope of FOI.

5. Why expenditure by parliamentary departments of funds allocated or administered on behalf of other agencies, around $230 million in this year's budget, by my reckoning (see 1.20), should not be subject to the same accountability and transparency requirements as other government agencies. Apart from what the 800 plus employees of the three departments do with public money, the allocations appear (it's murky territory) to include funds for salaries and electorate allowances of parliamentarians, additional salaries of parliamentary office holders, superannuation entitlements, resettlement allowance payments, and services and facilities to support parliamentarians in Parliament House including the cost of office accommodation, computing and other equipment, telephones, newspapers and stationery. And perhaps while the Speaker Mr Slipper who is accountable for the Department of House of Representatives is under investigation regarding travel as an MP, travel and entertainment for office holders such as the speaker and deputy speaker when on business connected to that office.

Let's hope common sense and good public policy prevails.

Lack of inquisitiveness in Canberra about parliamentarians' entitlements

Who's surprised?

Questions asked in Senate Estimates of the Department of the Senate and Department of Parliamentary Services about accountability and transparency of payments to and on behalf of parliamentarians, about the many recommendations for reform in the Belcher committee report commissioned two and a half years ago and released in April last year that have received no response from the government or parliament to date, or about the implications arising from the surprise recent news from the Australian Information Commissioner that both departments are subject to the Freedom of Information Act despite years of denials:

                                                  (This space intentionally left blank.)

Questions asked in Estimates of the Department of Finance and Deregulation about anything to do with parliamentarians' entitlements administered by that department, or the Belcher reform proposals, or for any explanation offered by 52 members, senators and former parliamentarians (including Senator Conroy, Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey to name just three) who have still not certified that their entitlements usage for January to June 2011, the first period covered by the decision to publish certification information, was in accordance with the provisions legislated for each entitlement. Or even more puzzling, why certification of proper use should remain "voluntary" :

                                                 (This space intentionally left blank.)

Surprise, as parliament within FOI scope all along

Well it turns out I have been off the money for years, bemoaning the fact that the Department of the Senate, the Department of the House of Representatives and the Department of Parliamentary Services, the three agencies that service the parliament and parliamentarians, are outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. And arguing that they should be brought within scope as recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission in 1995.

The departments have never been listed in any annual report on the operation of the act. No-one ever suggested I was off-target.

Bill Hoffman of the Sunshine Coast daily as recently as March was being rebuffed in attempts to get hold of documents concerning Peter Slipper's time as deputy speaker, the Sergeant at Arms as head of the House department telling him that  details of expenditure for services provided to individual members would not be released. 

But out of the blue, revised Guidelines today by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner include this paragraph for the first time (Part 2-Scope)

2.5 Three of the Commonwealth Parliamentary departments (the Department of the House of Representatives, the Department of the Senate and the Department of Parliamentary Services) are subject to the FOI Act because they were established by, or in accordance with, s 54 of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 and they have not been exempted. The fourth Commonwealth Parliamentary department, the Parliamentary Budget Office, is exempted because it is expressly deemed not to be a prescribed authority (s 7(1) and Division 1 of Part I of Schedule 2.)

No explanation, but perhaps the penny was dropping as legislation for the establishment of the Parliamentary Budget Office developed to insistent cries that it be specifically exempt from FOI. Of course legislation to this effect was necessary because a parliamentary department otherwise was a prescribed authority, a body corporate established for a public purpose by, or in accordance with the provisions of an enactment, and subject to the FOI act unless otherwise exempt.

As mentioned in previous posts these departments pay in addition to entitlements paid by the Department of Finance and Administration, salaries and electorate allowances of parliamentarians, additional salaries of parliamentary office holders, superannuation entitlements, resettlement allowance payments, and for services and facilities to support parliamentarians in Parliament House including the cost of office accommodation, computing and other equipment, telephones, newspapers and stationery. 

Of particular current interest is what documents held by the departments might reveal about payments to or on behalf of office holders such as the speaker, including perhaps travel, entertainment and other services when on business connected to that office.

And what other hitherto tightly held documents about expenditure for and on behalf of all other members and senators might reveal.

The FOI applicant queue starts here. 

If parliamentary leaders or Special Minister of State Gary Gray had been ahead of the game they might have headed all this off ages ago with moves toward pro-active disclosure along the lines advocated here rather than sitting on most Belcher committee recommendations for years. The Scottish model -on-line, comprehensive, searchable records of expenditure by parliamentarians still beckons.