Treasury leads on 2013 Blue book transparency-backwards

In contrast to 2010, when it led by providing partial but significant disclosure of the brief provided to the returning Treasurer and was followed in due course by most other departments, this time Treasury leads in the opposite direction, refusing access in response to a freedom of information application to the incoming minister brief prepared for Treasurer Joe Hockey. And to the Red book prepared for a returning Labor government, although let's leave that to one side for the purpose of this post.

The decision to refuse access to the entire brief is passing strange given Treasury released in response to FOI applications substantial parts of the same document prepared for a Coalition victory which didn't happen in 2010; audacious in it's reasoning, using but going further than the comments made on the issue by Australian Information Commissioner Professor McMillan in the recent Crowe v Treasury decision; and disappointing in effect as others are sure to follow. 

Sean Parnell in The Weekend Australian reported the Attorney General's Department had rejected an application for the AG's brief as well. 

With the current delay in the OAIC meaning any review decision could be 12 months down the track, Treasury has provided a template for others wrestling with the issue. And bought months of secrecy regardless of the eventual outcome, although public statements and selective leaks from on high that suit the department, the Treasurer or the government can be expected

The decision sounds a louder alarm about government transparency generally, already ringing because of other developments and the fact that neither the Prime Minister nor any ministers including Senator Brandis who has responsibility have said anything in the lead up to the election or since to reassure that the future involves more not less.

Allan Kessing's plight strikes a chord

Thank you to those who have contacted me over the last few days by phone and email - a selection below - offering help to Allan Kessing who lost his home last week in the bushfires.  

If you also are in a position to assist, please email me on timminsp@ozemail.com.au or phone 02 83569622. As I  told those who have been in touch, I'm waiting to hear further from Allan about how best to give effect to the generous offers. Thanks again.

Allan Kessing shattered - by bushfires this time

I've followed the misfortunes of Allan Kessing since kicking off here seven years ago. But was shattered by this report from his brother in Crikey, following yesterday's bushfires near Sydney:

"Allan has a block of land at Mount Victoria in the Blue Mountains, west of Sydney, he was up there by himself yesterday, trying to protect his house from the fires coming from the Lithgow area. He told me it was quite eerie up there before the fires hit. Then I got a message around 5pm saying everything was gone, there had been a sudden wind change and fires had broken out around Mount York Rd, Mount Victoria. He tried to fight it with his water pump, generator, hose and sprinkler system but the speed and ferocity of the firestorm was overwhelming. When the Rural Fire Service volunteers arrived they told him he must have a had a close escape, half his beard was burnt off and he didn't realise. Allan is completely devastated by the loss of the property and his extensive, lifelong book collection. Allan has only recently completed the construction of the house. He has poured his life savings into what was meant to be his mountain refuge from the pressures of his 'whistleblower' conviction. This brave Australian deserves better than this."

You can say that again and again. I've tried to contact him this afternoon, and, dear reader, put you on notice of a call for help for this learned champion of honesty and integrity.

Allan deserves praise and thanks for his effort to highlight failings within Customs and the security problems at Sydney Airport in 2005, recounted here. I believe him when he says he is not guilty of the offence, despite a conviction, of leaking a report to journalists at The Australian, but that he had spoken to his local MP Anthony Albanese, in Opposition at the time. Having made a fuss prior to the 2007 election about Allan's treatment during the Howard era, the ALP left government in September 2013 having done nothing to address the injustices foisted upon him.

Allan, wherever you are, be assured many are thinking of you and ready to lend a hand in response to this disaster.

On a personal note I have a daughter who with her family at Springwood have cleared out twice in two days as the fires neared, but are safe and not otherwise affected. Commiserations to all impacted by the fires.

Update: Allan responded, philosophically, to my message on Friday night:

Thanks for your thoughts, I'm OK just a bit pissed off at being broke again (uninsured!!) but, as the old chinese proverb sez, "now that my store house has burnt down, my view of the scenery is no longer obscured"...The amazing thing.. is that though the new house is gone, all my sheds, the garage which I put up in 2006 was unscathed, even though it was only a couple metres from conflagration, standing like Gibraltar amid a sea of grey ash and smouldering coals & embers. So at least I still have something to live in.. all in all, I'm luckier than most.. thanks for thinking of me."

I have asked him to put aside any uncomfortable feelings to tell me where I can send some money. If you feel moved by his situation, and would like to do likewise please contact me by email timminsp@ozemail.com.au or by phone 02 83569622.

Further update.

Lobbyists lobbying for changes to NSW lobbying rules

Wikimedia Commons-Adam J.W.C

A public test of their skills? 

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

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

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

Three of the five submissions are from lobbyists.

The submissions recommend movement towards a nationally consistent scheme. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parliamentarians entitlements-following the money ain't easy

The entitlements saga rolls on as more eyes take a look at published information on the Department of Finance website. 

Leaving aside the nature of the claims, here is why the system is a far cry from the simple and transparent model needed:

Publication on line of details of entitlement payments by the Department of Finance commencing in 2008. Reporting categories were expanded in 2009. Here is the latest-for the period July-December 2012. Searching across members and senators and over different six month periods is complex, putting it mildly; publication of payments in any event is nowhere near real time. The Belcher Committee noted that publication is voluntary and recommended it be enshrined in legislation.

Use of entitlements paid by Finance before 2008: Not published. Make a Freedom of Information application. Probably wait at least 30 days. With regard to some information, the member or senator may argue that it is personal and should not be disclosed as Prime Minister Gillard did in 2012-13 concerning a repayment made in 2007. Be prepared to appeal the decision. It could be a slow process.

Payments to, or support provided to senators and members by the Parliamentary departments such as salaries and electorate allowances, additional salaries and support provided to 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: Not published. Can't be accessed under FOI because parliament exempted itself from the act in June this year.

Gifts and interests: Published by the House as a series of notifications by the member of changes but no up to date list of current interests and the register has no search function. The Senate register may be different-but none of the links to pages for individual senators opened for me.

Payments to or on behalf of ministers, assistant ministers and parliamentary secretaries by their departments, or the cost of support provided such as the cost of official cars for the Minister and spouse; departmental liaison staff; additional stationery, office requisites, furniture and equipment in Ministers’ and Parliamentary Secretaries’ Parliament House Offices and their home State offices; official hospitality; and a range of other services: Not published. Make an FOI application. Follow the same path as for Finance pre 2008.

The current fuss shows the rules need to be sorted. And that we need fully transparent timely disclosure and a comprehensive single site searchable system to follow the money.

Former minister reflects on 'proud' Labor legacy on FOI

Proving the old axiom that Opposition is the preferred platform for politicians looking to say something about freedom of information, Senator Joe Ludwig former special minister of state in the first Rudd government offers some thoughts in The Guardian on Labor's record, and points to danger signs ahead.

One of my proudest enduring legacies from my time as a minister in the Labor government was bringing reform to Freedom of Information (FOI) law. My reforms made it easier for the public and the media to access the workings of government. 

It's true that Senator Ludwig was shadow attorney general before the 2007 election and Labor in Opposition did come up with a policy for FOI reform.

In government his predecessor as special minister of state Senator John Faulkner deserves the credit for breaking through on the necessity for some change, but doesn't rate a mention in this account. The 2010 FOI reforms that eventuated were good and welcome but a long way short of reasonable expectations ("minor improvements" according to Jack Waterford) and the law placed in the forties in world rankings.

 Ludwig's account ignores other parts of the Labor legacy on transparency and open government. 

For example quite apart from the patchy but improved record on actual disclosures under the act, the list includes barely visible drive from the top on Open Government, ministerial failure to advocate and lead on public service culture change, resource cut backs at the Office of Australian Information Commissioner resulting in a 12 month queue for external review, no action for years on whistleblower protection until the game was almost over, allowing the Law Reform Commission Report on Secrecy Laws and Open Government completed in December 2009 to disappear into a black hole at Attorney General's, and the same goes for the September 2011 invitation from Secretary of State Clinton to join the Open Government Partnership until it was acted on by Mark Dreyfus in May 2013, skewed terms of reference for the half-hearted review of the operation of the legislation by Allan Hawke in 2012-13. I could go on.. 

Of relevance to the current kerfuffle over entitlements, Senator Ludwig commissioned the Belcher review in September 2009, following critical findings by the Auditor General. The report was handed to him six months later. It had not been released publicly by the time Senator Ludwig moved to Agriculture after the August 2010 election. The report was tabled in Parliament in March 2011, close to a year after it was completed. Few of the recommendations were acted upon then and that remains the case today.

Senator Ludwig in appointing the Committee said:

"We are committed to reform, openness and transparency to ensure that we maintain the trust and confidence of the Australian people,”

Ah that trust thing - it's been running for quite a while. 

He could be right by the way about difficult days ahead on the transparency front.

Privacy concerns rising and hard to ignore

Not surprising given what we see and hear around us, the report on the Community Attitudes to Privacy Survey undertaken on behalf of the Office of Australian Information Commissioner shows that Australians are becoming more concerned about privacy risk. The report provides useful insights into attitudes on a wide range of specific privacy related issues. 

The long drawn out process of enacting the Stage One privacy law reforms to commence in March 2014 is just one of many steps that will be needed to keep pace with the challenges posed for protection of privacy and changing community attitudes.

Two among many issues likely to require consideration by the Abbott government are:
One, Australia currently has no requirement for mandatory data breach notification.
The survey shows 85% strongly and 11% somewhat agree that business should notify them if personal information is lost; 88% strongly and 8% somewhat agree government should do the same. A third (33%) of the population has either been the victim of ID fraud or theft or knows someone who has.

(Given the expectation regarding notification by business, Australians might be surprised that most  businesses aren't subject to privacy legislation because of the exemption for small business - a Stage 2 reform that awaits attention six years after the ALRC recommended this and other exemptions for example for political parties should be withdrawn.)

To address the notification issue, the House of Representatives passed the Privacy (Alerts) Amendment Bill earlier this year but the bill was not considered by the Senate prior to the election and has now lapsed. 

During debate in the House, Michael Keenan, then shadow and now Minister for Justice said the coalition supported the bill but reserved the right to move amendments following any recommendations made by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. 

The Senate Committee, after allowing one and a half days for submissions recommended passage without amendment but coalition senators Humphries and Boyce were critical of a process that meant the bill had not received thorough and detailed scrutiny. The "concerns of key stakeholders should not lightly be set aside..concerns raised..should be better scrutinised, understood and acted upon by the relevant government agencies.." Concerns raised in committee included the meaning of key terms such as 'real risk of serious harm' within the trigger definition ' serious data breach', the practicality of some notification requirements and the breadth of exceptions.

Two, the rise in concern about privacy risks and intrusions will focus attention on the adequacy of protections imposed and remedies available in law. The publication of the survey results coincided last week with release by the Australian Law Reform Commission of an Issues Paper, the first stage of public consultation for the Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Age reference. The paper seeks input on 28 questions, 25 relating to a possible cause of action for breach and alternative ways that existing laws could be supplemented or amended to provide appropriate protection for privacy in the digital era. Submissions close 11 November.

To say the Attorney General Senator Brandis was underwhelmed at the prospect of further ALRC examination of the issue of a statutory cause of action for a serious and unwarranted breach of privacy when the issue cropped up in May would be an understatement. 

Parliamentarians entitlements-travel just part of the bigger picture

Reports about newsworthy parliamentarians' entitlement claims and of repayments for some questionable ones have been mostly sourced from details published on the internet by the Department of Finance since 2009. Some of the longer pieces for example Tom Allard in the SMH are starting to raise bigger picture issues about complexity and the need for a fair, simplified fully transparent system.

However the Prime Minister in Brunei said that as far as travel entitlements are concerned

I'm not proposing to change the system. If people want to make suggestions, they’re welcome to make suggestions, but I’m not proposing to change the system.If people want to make suggestions, they’re welcome to make suggestions, but I’m not proposing to change the system.

FactCheck confirms the rules are not clear.

More broadly the Belcher committee made plenty of other suggestions, recommendations in fact, for change in 2010 that have been ignored so far and others have been floated since.

Publication of the details of payment of entitlements by Finance for example is voluntary.The Committee recommended it should be underpinned by legislation. 

Other recommendations about governance arrangements were ignored as well.
 
The review didn't even look at the general provision of services at Parliament House to senators and members but still referred to the opaque nature of the system. Its recommendation on that score should be ratcheted up into a mandatory publishing requirement when Parliament gets back to accepting FOI coverage: 

That the presiding officers be encouraged to publish on a regular basis details of expenditure on services and facilities provided to individual senators and members by the chamber departments.

 On another front, those seeking access to information about use of entitlements by a senator or member in the pre-2009 period must run the freedom of Information gauntlet, with all the delays and obstacles that can arise when either the agency or a third party wants to argue the toss or at least slow things down.This shouldn't be necessary.

With regard to some information at least Finance in processing the application consults the person concerned on the basis that the senator or member may contend the disclosure is of personal information, would be unreasonable and contrary to the public interest.

Case in point: the decision by Australian Information Commissioner Professor McMillan in 'AK' v Department of Finance and Deregulation [2013] AICmr 64. An unnamed member of parliament argued unsuccessfully against disclosure on this basis of a document that revealed in 2007 she had repaid $4200 for use of the taxpayer provided private plated car in 2006 by her partner in driving throughout Victoria as a salesman of hair products. The car is provided for Parliamentary, electorate or official business, family travel and private purposes, but not for commercial purposes

It subsequently emerged the parties were Ms Julia Gillard MP and Tim Mathieson.

Hedley Thomas of The Australian was onto this in October 2012 when he made the application.The documents that revealed the repayment were released to him in September 2013.

(Addendum: Finance posted the released documents on its Disclosure Log under the heading 'Documents relating to government funded vehicle'- in separate pdf files that would take a fair bit of digging to find or interrogate. Gillard's name is mentioned as the MP.)

This sounds like one of those classic 'wait out' and 'grind down' the applicant stories. In this case Ms Gillard, Prime Minister at the time, was a third party relying on a wing and a prayer, as Professoir McMillan made clear in rejecting the exemption claim. Delay in the facts coming to light may have been the main objective.

On taking office as Prime Minister, Ms Gillard famously proclaimed let the sun shine in.
Given the message sent by the PM as AK was it any wonder those close to the grindstone might have taken the proclamation with a grain of salt?

Of course don't even think about digging deep at Parliament House. Not only are details of payments not published, Parliament exempted itself from the FOI act.

Red hot if you ask me.

Reform is needed and badly.

Over to Prime Minister Abbott, presumably still intending to address the trust deficit.

FOI-free zone around Federal Parliament

A few hundred words dashed off for The Guardian on a topic familiar to readers here but relevant to the focus this week on parliamentarians' use of entitlements: the rapid passage of legislation in the last week of parliament before the election to exempt the parliamentary departments from the Freedom of Information Act.

Ah, that trust thing

Parliamentary entitlements-it's not just expenses in attending a wedding

Parliamentarians and their use of entitlements is getting a good but belated run in the mainstream media-hopefully not just because it is a slow news day. I did ABC Radio AM and ABC News 24 Breakfast this morning. And ABC Radio National Drive and a cameo on 7.30 Report with most on the cutting room floor. In case you missed it- some of the weaknesses in the system. Also a post from April 2011 about the Belcher report, back in the news.

Incoming government briefs: what's changed since 2010?

Dcriel

The first Blue Book access issue of the 2013 new government season has emerged with Delimiter told that its Freedom of Information application for the briefing book in the hands of Communications Minister Turnbull will cost $2072 to process. And quickly crowd-raising the money.

We could be in for a different season this year compared to 2010. Then, following Treasury's 2007 and 2010 leads, government agencies released or published mostly redacted versions of the incoming government briefs. 

Foreign Affairs did manage to spin it out for a year!

This time around we aren't hearing transparency talked up-so far.

Tone at the very top in some cases is trending in the opposite direction.

The recent decision by Australian Information Commissioner Professor McMillan, although leaving open the issue of access to 2013 briefs, canvassed the range of issues relevant to disclosure. The first time observation that a 'class claim' could be entertained for exemption of certain types of documents (incoming government briefs?) as deliberative process documents won't have gone unnoticed.

 Back in 2010 Prime Minister Abbott had strong views on a related issue, publication of Treasury costings of Liberal policies, during the days of uncertainty about the formation of a government:

TONY ABBOTT: This is very important Lyndal, because you know, our system depends on public servants being able to give free, frank and fearless advice to government and that means the advice has got to remain confidential. And what we've got here is a desperate Prime Minister trashing the Westminster system in an attempt to hold onto power.

LYNDAL CURTIS: So you don't want that information released?

TONY ABBOTT: Well if, if, if the most confidential public service advice can be casually released just to help this government to hang onto power, I mean they are trashing the Westminster system in a desperate attempt to hold onto power...The conventions are there for a reason, they are there because if you are going to have efficient and effective government the public service has got to be able to give confidential advice...Now you just can't have this advice strewn around like confetti because you have a desperate government desperately trying to cling to power and in the process trashing the Westminster conventions. But what cannot happen, you cannot have the frank and fearless advice of the public service prejudiced by releasing it to people for whom it was never intended. I mean this completely undermines and compromises our whole system of government.

More on point, Opposition frontbencher then, now Minister for Trade and Investment Robb said at the time incoming government briefs warranted state secret status if a public service 'down tools" was to be avoided:

''The red and blue books are fundamental to successful transition to government, and that's another important plank of convention in the way in which our government runs,'' he said. ''That material is based on frank and fearless … advice by the public service, and if they thought that could become public knowledge, they would not conduct that sort of assessment again.''

And sitting unattended so far in the in tray of Attorney General Brandis, Dr Hawke's FOI review report recommends a specific conditional exemption for the briefs.

There are counter arguments of course, particularly that the public interest in disclosure of those parts of briefs that contain information about the state of the nation or departmental slices of it is strong. The South Australian Ombudsman's observations about the state equivalent documents, held in that case to be cabinet documents, apply equally to documents about national affairs:

In my view, there are reasons why the agencies might give access to parts of the portfolio briefs and other briefing documents, notwithstanding that they are exempt.....I consider that there is a strong public interest in members of the public being aware of policy initiatives and other issues that the agencies consider important to South Australia. In my view, access to such information would enhance public participation in discussions about South Australia’s future, and would be consistent with the objects of the FOI Act of promoting openness and accountability, as well as the principles of administration. I consider these public interest factors to be strongest with respect to generic documents, that is documents prepared with either a returning Labor or an incoming Liberal government in mind

In any event in Canberra this year there is potential for all this to be a drawn out FOI battleground. And something of an early test regarding the need to address the trust deficit.

Charges might be round one. Those in the queue with applications for the Communications brief have apparently received a letter asking for a deposit against  the estimated cost of processing their application - the same $2072 as indicated to Delimiter. While probably technically within the law the applicants and the court of public opinion might see this as a bit rich. 

'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?

High Court hearing scheduled in FOI test for Governor General's Office

The just published latest edition of Anne Summers Reports includes (page 6) my brief summary of the arguments advanced in the successful leave application to the High Court in Kline v Official Secretary to the Governor General, the long running battle over access to information about administration of the Honours system. 

The issue is the scope of the Freedom of information Act and the meaning of the words "relate to matter of an administrative nature" in the context of the powers and functions of  the Governor General in administering the Order of Australia. 

The appeal will be heard in Canberra on 30 October. 

The written submission on behalf of the Appellant by Ron Merkel QC was not available when I wrote the ASR piece about a month ago.

By the by, I understand that the government's costs in fighting this case through its long journey to the steps of the High Court are well north of $130000, not $30000 as mentioned in the article.

Right to Know Day

Flikr-Eric the Fish

Dancing in the street on 28 September to celebrate the annual International Right to Know Day isn't quite the go hereabouts - and those in the picture were busy celebrating some other occasion in any event.

But the Office of Australian Information Commissioner supported it, the Information and Privacy Commission (NSW) updated a factsheet (hey, every little helps) and the Office of the Information Commissioner (Queensland) again organised the annual Solomon Lecture, this year by Griffith University’s Professor Anna Stewart, 'Finding Gold in Mountains of Administrative Data' introduced by Police Commissioner Ian Stewart with some remarks about the Queensland Crime Map.

Dancing- one of these years!

Abbott Government on civil society and the right to speak out

Flikr-Patos

Getting the ducks in a row - as in policy co-ordination - is a constant challenge. 

Where you stand on freedoms, civil society, engagement, and ensuring consistency across government even more so.

Government voice
The Prime Minister on ABC PM 26 September speaking about new ministers getting ahead of the game:

 TONY ABBOTT: It's very important that the Government speaks with a united voice. In opposition, before my senior colleagues did media they normally called in with my office. It was a very good arrangement in opposition. It's a very good arrangement in Government and it's one that my colleagues have always been happy to comply with.

 Campaigners to be reined in?

Protest groups that stymie major infrastructure projects will be targeted as the Coalition seeks to speed up an $11.5 billion roads program ... The moves challenge 'not-in-my-backyard' protesters." -- The Australian, September 25
"Environmental groups have hit out at a Federal Government proposal to silence organisations from campaigning in overseas markets. Tasmanian senator and Parliamentary secretary for agriculture Richard Colbeck has floated the idea of amendments to consumer law aimed at stopping campaigns against Australian products" -- Hobart Mercury, September 24.

While no one in authority has said so, might aid groups have their activist reins pulled - former Coalition Senator Trood suggests it is a 'Coalition disposition'.
 
Government statement on civil society and the right to speak out
Joint statement issued in Washington on 23 September on behalf of the United States, Australia, Canada and 21 other governments after meeting with civil society and other groups in New York:

We affirmed that the strength and vibrancy of nations depend on an active civil society and robust engagement between governments and civil society to advance shared goals of peace, prosperity, and the well-being of all people.  We noted our deep concern that many governments are restricting civil society and the rights of freedom of association and expression, both online and offline. 
To combat this alarming trend, our governments committed to work together to respond to growing restrictions on civil society that undermine its ability to perform its crucial role....  We will lead by example to promote laws, policy decisions, and practices that foster a positive space for civil society in accordance with international law, and oppose legislation and administrative measures that impede efforts of civil society.  We will undertake joint diplomatic action whenever necessary to support civil society in countries where it is under threat, and to defend the fundamental freedoms of association and peaceful assembly. We will also work to develop new and innovative ways of providing technical, financial, and logistical support to promote and protect the right of citizens and civil society to freely associate, meaningfully engage with government, and constructively participate in processes to improve the well-being of their countries.  Throughout all of these efforts, our nations will continue to engage with representatives of civil society to help us understand and respond to the challenges they confront. 
We commit to gather again at the opening of the 69th United Nations General Assembly to review our progress toward these objectives.  We will work in concert over the coming year to ensure a robust, effective international response to the proliferation of restrictions being placed on civil society. We call on representatives of civil society, the philanthropic community, the private sector, and other governments to partner with us in supporting and defending civil society.

 Australia on joining the Open Government Partnership
The OGP was referred to in the Joint Statement and in the meeting in New York as part of the commitment to protect and promote civil society. Australia had announced in May its intention to join. On joining it will adopt the Open Government Declaration which includes these commitments:

"We commit to making policy formulation and decision making more transparent, creating and using channels to solicit public feedback, and deepening public participation in developing, monitoring and evaluating government activities. We commit to protecting the ability of not-for-profit and civil society organizations to operate in ways consistent with our commitment to freedom of expression, association, and opinion. We commit to creating mechanisms to enable greater collaboration between governments and civil society organizations and businesses."

Interesting times.

Australia stands up for Civil Society, and the OGP

My uneasiness about silence from the Abbott Government regarding the Open Government Partnership is put to rest by this statement issued by the White House after the High Level Forum in support of civil society, chaired by President Obama in New York this week (emphasis added):

We, the governments of the United States, Australia, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Ireland, Japan, Libya, Lithuania, Mexico, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, and the United Kingdom, taking note of the important work of the Community of Democracies, the Open Government Partnership, and the Lifeline Fund, met on September 23 along with representatives of civil society, the philanthropic community, the private sector, and the United Nations on the margins of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.  Our purpose was to reinforce the central role of civil society in working with governments to address common challenges and to coordinate action to promote and protect civil society in the face of ongoing assault around the world.  We affirmed that the strength and vibrancy of nations depend on an active civil society and robust engagement between governments and civil society to advance shared goals of peace, prosperity, and the well-being of all people.  We noted our deep concern that many governments are restricting civil society and the rights of freedom of association and expression, both online and offline.
To combat this alarming trend, our governments committed to work together to respond to growing restrictions on civil society that undermine its ability to perform its crucial role.  We will ensure effective coordination of the multiple efforts already underway toward this end, including through the U.N. system, the Community of Democracies, the Open Government Partnership, and Lifeline, and commit to strengthen our support for these existing mechanisms.  We will enhance our support for the work of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association.  We will lead by example to promote laws, policy decisions, and practices that foster a positive space for civil society in accordance with international law, and oppose legislation and administrative measures that impede efforts of civil society.  We will undertake joint diplomatic action whenever necessary to support civil society in countries where it is under threat, and to defend the fundamental freedoms of association and peaceful assembly.
We will also work to develop new and innovative ways of providing technical, financial, and logistical support to promote and protect the right of citizens and civil society to freely associate, meaningfully engage with government, and constructively participate in processes to improve the well-being of their countries.  Throughout all of these efforts, our nations will continue to engage with representatives of civil society to help us understand and respond to the challenges they confront.
We commit to gather again at the opening of the 69th United Nations General Assembly to review our progress toward these objectives.  We will work in concert over the coming year to ensure a robust, effective international response to the proliferation of restrictions being placed on civil society. We call on representatives of civil society, the philanthropic community, the private sector, and other governments to partner with us in supporting and defending civil society.

Watch the hour long Forum and note the summary of references to the OGP. This is the transcript of President Obama's remarks.

Australia on the international stage, with OGP notes in the bag?

 With Foreign Minister Bishop in New York meeting lots of friends and others and sitting briefly in the chair as President of the Security Council and then to join Prime Minister Abbott for a visit to Jakarta later in the week, somewhere in all the briefing books there must be an item "Australia and the Open Government Partnership"?

Just in case someone asks our intentions, as David Cameron did of Prime Minister Key in London last week. Or better still, because we wish to get in ahead with an assurance that Australia's commitment to join remains despite the change of government, and that the Coalition's silence on the subject to date is of no significance.

Particularly in meetings with the Indonesians given the fact that Indonesia is a co-chair of the OGP with the UK, and will become the lead co-chair after the Steering Committee and Summit meetings in London at the end of the month. And that the issue is managed in Jakarta from the president's office, suggesting it has a high priority there.

The ten foreign policy and other reasons for getting on board with the OGP suggested last December still make sense. 

An eleventh is that explaining an about turn on Labor's announcement in May of intention to join won't go down well in Jakarta, London or Washington, where it is described as President Obama's 'signature governance initiative,' and will lead to head scratching in 56 other capitals as well. 

A twelfth is walking away on an initiative that sees members commit to more transparent, effective and accountable governments with institutions that empower citizens and are responsive to their aspirations would be difficult to square with the Prime Minister's intention to restore trust.

And because as chair of the G20 from December we wouldn't want to be outside the loop on the transparency issues that have been and remain high on that agenda.

So here's hoping that the briefing notes are in the bag and that a strong robust public commitment to stand firm with the OGP is forthcoming.
(Update-seems so)

To be followed by a meaningful partnership with civil society here at home to identify and get cracking on concrete goals that improve the way our democracy works. 



 

Queensland information Commissioner

I didn't see any media release but a reader noticed the First Assistant Information Commissioner has been appointed Information Commissioner in Queensland:

Rachael Rangihaeata has "extensive experience and expertise to the position having held senior leadership positions across all functions of the Office of the Information Commissioner since 2005, including Acting Information Commissioner.  Rachael led the OIC Implementation team responsible for establishing new OIC functions and providing extensive information and training resources for public sector agencies when the Right to Information Act 2009 and the Information Privacy Act 2009 were introduced. Rachael has also worked in various roles within the Queensland State and Commonwealth public service, primarily in strategic and legislative policy. Prior to her appointment Rachael held the position of First Assistant Information Commissioner since 2006, and most recently led the Assistance and Monitoring functions of the Office.

It took 13 months to fill the position. 

Best wishes to the commissioner and Queenslanders all.

Transparency and 'tone at the top'

You don't create a culture of secrecy in a week, but tone at the top is shaped from Day One.

Immigration is a case study in motion.

The brand name attached to dealing with boat arrivals 'Operation Sovereign Borders' is a message in itself. The details are now 'border security operational' or 'tactical' matters.

Asylum seeker boat arrivals, under Labor announced as they occurred, are now to be announced in a weekly briefing by Minister Morrison. Accompanied by Lieutenant-General Angus Campbell.

Any boat turn arounds are likely to be kept secret.

The Minister for Immigration has made it clear who is managing the information flows:

"There's one spokesperson for the portfolio of immigration and border protection and you're looking at him. And I'll be the one fronting things, not public servants.''

Of course the Department of Immigration and Citizenship is not known for openness and transparency.

Last year former head of the Attorney General's Department Robert Cornall after a review concluded that at a time when pro-disclosure was required "the Department presently appears to have more of an attitude of resistance to disclosure."

I gave DIAC the booby prize for what appears to be classic gaming the system in dealing with applications lodged as part of the Behind the Wire project on the Righttoknow platform

Nick Olle this week in the Global Mail detailed an associated run around with DIAC maintaining its decisions fully comply with the provisions of the law. Hmm..

Presumably the past practice continues in DIAC (and Prime Minister and Cabinet and other agencies) of providing the minister's office with time to comment on decisions regarding FOI applications. A meeting of minds may not take long.

Given the indicators of tone at the top in Week One you wonder who is up for speaking truth to power about the public right to know, the public interest in scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of government activity, and in disclosure of information that would inform discussion and public debate on matters of public importance? Months or a year away and up to the Office of Australian information Commissioner in an FOI review decision perhaps?

Then there's the trust issue so important to the PM.

Quite apart from the administrative cost of forcing formal FOI applications for information unlikely to be exempt but that could be provided promptly and efficiently at a fraction of the cost. 

This editorial in The Canberra Times Abbott stops the transparency boat - that has 'Jack Waterford' written all over it in invisible ink - is well worth a read. Excessive secrecy begets  deception and worse if the past is a guide.

None of the Immigration 'tone' is offset by other indicators of the Abbott Government approach to open, transparent government. When given the opportunity in a media conference last week to say something about transparency, for example a briefing after cabinet meets, Prime Minister Abbott didn't grab it, tending in the other direction

 ''I am not going to commit to talking unless I've got something to say. I think that there's been far too much empty talk from people who should know better at senior levels of government over the last few years. I really do want to begin as I mean to continue.''