We all know the federal government has a problem with secrecy. It’s become immeasurably worse under Prime Minister Scott Morrison, whose obsession with keeping the public in the dark is behind almost every political move he makes. But it’s also become clear that Canberra lags most states — and other countries — in basic transparency.
The public is waking up to the issue, with calls for a bona fide federal integrity commission growing. But there are other things the government could do to bring even a basic level of transparency to government decision-making.
A mechanism already in place in Queensland and New South Wales would be an easy way to get basic details about how power and influence play out in the nation’s capital. In both states, ministers are required to release the details of their diaries — who they met or spoke to, and when the conversations took place.
The rules in Queensland and NSW have been working for years to provide insights into ministerial decision-making. So why should it be different for federal politicians?
The power of access
Who ministers are speaking to and meeting leading up to a decision is obviously of significant public interest. It can shine a light on who is seeking to influence a decision, and who is being locked out of those conversations.
Of course it’s not a silver bullet, and is made much stronger with clearer transparency over who the lobbyists are via an effective lobbyist register. But even on its own it gives the public some idea of the political and corporate interests at play.
“Access in and of itself is a really important commodity,” transparency expert AJ Brown said. “There might be no bribery or corruption, but equity of access and influence between different people is vital.”
Ministerial diaries can also show whether ministers or MPs are listening to only one person or company in particular — and who they are not listening to. Depending on how quickly the data is published, this can be a hugely powerful tool in the lead-up to a big government decision.
Making ministerial diaries public also goes some way to lifting the cloak on lobbyists — who they are and who they represent.
States pave the way
In Queensland, ministers are required to proactively disclose portfolio related meetings and events every month. These can be accessed through the government’s website.
In NSW the diaries of ministers are made public every three months under a law introduced under former premier Mike Baird in 2014.
The laws of both states are not perfect. Personal, electorate or party political meetings, and information “contrary to public interest” is not required to be declared. But they have proved to be a powerful tool in holding ministers to account.
In Queensland in 2020, they helped reveal that Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk’s former government strategy chief, Evan Moorhead, was working as a lobbyist while being paid by Labor to help run its campaign ahead of the October 31 state election.
Australia lagging
At a federal level, greater transparency over who ministers are listening to would also go some way to preventing corruption when it comes to big government contracts.
“When you’ve got situations like where there are large government contracts involved, you would want to know when the minister for defence procurement was meeting with big defence contractors to be sure there were no secret discussions that were consistent with any kind of bribery or collusion or corruption,” Brown said.
A research paper by the Centre for Public Integrity (CPI) last month shows the regulation of lobbyists in Australia is falling short of international standards, including requirements in the UK and Canada. It also found it was falling behind the standards set by the Australian National Audit Office and the OECD.
“MPs are paid to represent their electorates but in actual fact spend more time speaking with lobbyists than their constituents,” CPI director Geoffrey Watson SC said.
“The public has a right to know who is lobbying our members of parliament and federal government, and whose interests they represent.”
Not only the diary, but the minutes of the meeting should be put on the public record, in as near as possible to real time as can be achieved. That way the public can not only know who the minister was talking to, but what they were talking about. I am prepared to allow some cut-outs for protection of the privacy of individual members of the public, but even these should be limited. I believe it would greatly reduce the attraction, and value, of ministerial access for lobbyists if they had to conduct their business in the light of day.
In ACT Executive Committees of Owners Corporations must post the minutes of their meetings within seven days of each meeting. EC members are volunteers and most have day jobs. If we are expected to behave this way then surely governments should have similar expectations put on them.
“The public has a right to know”? Illusion or delusion? How can that be so, when governments do all within their power denying accountability, transparency? Truth excluded, replaced, denied and defaced. Julian Assange anyone?
I’m sorry, did you say ” …the rules in Queensland and NSW have been working for years…”, Georgia?
Surely if that were the case, the current ICAC investigation into Gladys Berejiklian’s dealings with her former lover, would have been unnecessary.
One would think Ms Berejiklian’s Ministerial diary, would include conversations regarding lobbying by Mr Maguire for (his) “Conservatory” and Wagga Wagga Hospital.
After all, lobbying is lobbying – whether by MPs, Shareholders, or the average taxpayer.
One would assume then that the ICAC would have no reason to be asking, investigating the matter at all, if the politicians involved had thoroughly recorded any/all conversations on this and other matters ….thereby eliminating the, ” I don’t recall” statement so frequently used by not only Ms Berejiklian, but every other Minister in the NSW Government over the past several years.
No accoutability = no democracy! The Soviet Union claimed it had a Socialist democracy but in fact its leader and ministers were unaccountable to the public. So that experiment failed. We are heading steadily into that same unnaccountable system where you can vote but you can’t influence in any way what government ministers do – and that’s after they fail to present comprehensive policies at election time.
Have you ever written to an MP in the vain hope of getting proper a reply?
Yes, we should study countries that practice accountability, in particular take a look at the American constitution. Compiled by a group of Radicals, if not Revolutionaries, it enshrines in law the essence of democracy, namely accountability. (Although as a rider I should add that they don’t like having their secret manipulations uncovered by enthusiastic journalists…who suffer at the hands of their legal system for their revelations.)
And the other great underminer of democracy is that “they-all-do-it” Australian pastime : Corruption
My comment may present as a question rather than specific to ministerial diaries, however, I will continue and leave the matter up to the Crikey.com moderator.
If in Australia a federal leadership government political party is unable to demonstrate that it is “governing in the best interests of the Australian people” then surely that federal government leadership party has no right to retain its role as a leadership federal government political party and must be revoked?
According to the primary principles in Australia’s Commonwealth Constitution;
The daily processes within the institutions of “government should always be in the public interest.”
It is arguably possible to state that the Scott Morrison-led government “does indeed fail to govern in the best interests of Australia’s people.
Extract from the above Georgia Wilkins important presented article;
We all know the federal government has a problem with secrecy. It’s become immeasurably worse under Prime Minister Scott Morrison, whose obsession with keeping the public in the dark is behind almost every political move he makes.