Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The Greens believe that open and transparent government needs to be a prerequisite to an effective democracy. Information is central to knowing how our elected representatives are exercising their power, and to hold our representatives to account. I wanted to put that statement on the record at the beginning before going into aspects of the Freedom of Information Amendment (Requests and Reasons) Bill 2015. The Greens do support the bill, but it is very much a stopgap measure that needs to be seen in the context of what Labor did on FOI matters when they were in government. There were missed opportunities then and there are missed opportunities with this bill that is before us now.

Ideally, government agencies should be making more information publicly available as a matter of course. There is widespread community support for broad FOI laws that ensure accountability and transparency of government. At the end of the day we are talking about people who are paid by the public using public money on matters, services, that will impact on the public. That information should be readily available and, in this day with so many digital platforms, that can be readily done. The degree to which it lags in Australia is very disappointing.

The other thing that is very relevant in this debate are the comments that are made by leaders of Labor and the Liberal-National parties when they are in opposition, which are usually very fine statements. But when they are elected we then see a retreat from those positions. It is interesting to note that this comment was made when the former Labor Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, first took office—so I do acknowledge that she was in office—but then these fine words were not adhered to. In September 2010, she said:

… we will be held more accountable than ever before, and more than any government in modern memory. We will be held to higher standards of transparency and reform, and it's in that spirit that I approach the task of forming a government.

That was certainly welcome, and many people who followed this closely—anybody who was about to put in an FOI application—obviously expected that there would be higher standards of transparency and accountability. One assumption that you would take from that statement by the then Prime Minister was that there would be real encouragement, there would be real movement, in this area.

Also relevant to this debate is the comment from the Australian Information Commissioner, Professor John McMillan. As many of you know, this is a position that is really being pushed out of the door by this current government, but his words were also very relevant. He said:

Access to information issues now have greater prominence in government. There is a marked increase in FOI requests for policy-related material, an upswing in applicants challenging access refusals through the OAIC's independent complaint and review processes, and more media reporting based on documents obtained by FOI requests. A clear message for agencies is that information disclosure issues are important not only when access requests are received, but when documents and records are created and programs that will attract public interest are being developed. Disclosure by design is becoming a necessary practice.

I wanted to give some context to this bill because it is a missed opportunity. That is what is so disappointing—that a Labor senator who has in fact worked in this area has brought forward such a minimal bill.

There are some suggestions. Let's remember what could have been covered and should have been covered and should now be in law. The provisions of the FOI Act regarding the Information Publication Scheme, the IPS, resulted from the 2009-10 review and commenced operation in 2011. This requires agencies subject to the act to publish a broad range of information on their websites. The Greens very much believe that the implementation of the IPS was an important step towards greater accessibility of government held information, but, again, they were only small steps. This is an area that could have been picked up in a bill like the one before us, to improve the current situation. We need to more actively promote cultural change within government agencies. This is an issue that often comes up at estimates. It is not just about changing the law; it is about changing the culture under which it operates. By looking at the details of the law and the regulations, we can achieve that. We need government agencies to proactively publish information about their activities. This is happening in so many other jurisdictions, where the default is that government information automatically goes up on websites.

I will come to the issue of exemptions—we are not talking about everything. The exemptions are there; the protections with regard to security are in place. It is a furphy when people suggest otherwise. To emphasise, Australia is far behind international trends of using digital platforms as a very quick and easily accessible way for the public to access information that they have a right to. Consideration should be given, we believe, to making it mandatory for agencies to publish information on themselves that is currently optional, including information about agency priorities and finances; lists including agency contracts, grants and appointments; and links to datasets, submissions to other bodies and policies. It needs to be comprehensive. It clearly is time for that.

Then there is the issue that we have debated in this parliament before and that needs to be revisited when we speak about FOI changes: the need for all agencies to be covered by FOI as a matter of principle. It was very disappointing and disturbing when Labor, Liberal and the Nationals voted for the bill that allowed that exemption to continue. The Greens believe that all blanket exemptions that place certain government departments and agencies beyond the reach of FOI laws should be removed. The workings of parliamentary departments and Australia's intelligence agencies should not be exempt from public scrutiny. The current FOI legislation already ensures protection of sensitive information by providing wide-ranging exemptions for documents that are held by agencies subject to the act. Exemptions are made for documents: that affect national security, defence or international relations; that affect enforcement of law and protection of public safety; to which secrecy provisions of enactments apply; that are subject to legal professional privilege; that contain material obtained in confidence; and that disclose trade secrets or commercially valuable information. To emphasise, the exemptions are there. That is why government departments should not be exempt overall—because within how FOI is handled the exemptions are there.

If blanket exemptions were removed, agencies coming under FOI laws would have recourse to these existing exemptions, which would adequately protect sensitive information—again, removing all those excuses and justifications for why not all government departments have been brought in. I congratulate the Australian lawyer Peter Timmins, who does outstanding work in this area. His comment on this issue is very relevant:

The effect of blanket exclusions is to remove from potential public scrutiny, and the accountability framework, information concerning the conduct of public functions and the use of public money without any balancing of the interests involved.

That is an issue that I believe will be revisited time and time again.

I really want to emphasise that public money is what keeps the House of Representatives and the Senate functioning, and the public have a right to know how that money is spent. There is no justification for that overall exemption. 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 support for this change is worth sharing again with the senators. I have spoken about this before, but I believe it is so important that it warrants repeating. The respected Carter Center in the US advocates that all three government branches be subject to FOI law. A 2011 international FOI law survey marked Australia down to 39th out of 89 countries, partly because of this omission. And it is again worth remembering something else that we have spoken about before but that is highly relevant to what I am talking about and to the bill that is before us, because it is a missed opportunity. The previous Clerk of the Senate, Mr Harry Evans, also argued for the extension of the FOI Act to parliamentary departments, noting that exemptions already protect genuinely sensitive documents. That is such an important point that is so often glossed over.

We have a bill before us that will make some changes to how FOI operates, will make it easier for people to understand what has happened with applications and will reduce the chance of duplication. But, again, I suggest that that is very minimal in terms of what we have before us. This is an issue that I very much wanted to comment on, because when I saw this bill come forward and I first saw that Senator Ludwig was moving it, I thought there was an opportunity. When Labor moves into opposition there is sometimes a change in what they put forward, and I was hoping it would have been stronger legislation than what we have now, but it is certainly very disappointing.

Another area that is very relevant when discussing FOI is the issue of MPs' entitlements—an issue that we all know ends up in the media periodically: there is scrutiny, there are complaints and there are stories about it. Surely more of that information should be in the public domain. The Greens believe that it is essential that there is public access to information about parliamentarians' entitlements. I would argue that it is a very essential component of democracy. I mentioned before that where people are employed by the public, using public money for public services and amenities, then surely that should be open to thorough scrutiny. When it comes to the lawmakers—people like ourselves—it should be absolutely essential. But it is so hard for people to find out about the money that is allocated, how it is spent and what it is spent on. Again, considering that the data is saved and reported on in a digital form, it would be quite easy for this to change.

I would like to remind senators of the experience in Scotland. If you go to the website of the Scottish parliament you can click on any member and find out about the allowances and entitlements they have available to them and how they are spending them. It is very easy. Again, these are not difficult changes. They should not even be controversial. How we go about this should be quite automatic.

More accountable government would be achieved by releasing more information on the workings of parliament and the activities of MPs. I also would argue that I think it would help restore more confidence in the democratic process and more respect for politicians. We all know that a lot of people get cynical about the democratic process and about MPs. It is something that, I have to say, troubles me, because I obviously have considerable differences with my colleagues from other parties but I respect that they are out there representing their party or, if they are Independents, the platform that they have stood on. They are working hard for those measures. But a lot of people regard senators or MPs with great cynicism, and where I find that leads to is that they start disengaging from the democratic process. They think there is no point. Everybody would have heard their arguments and criticisms. Again, that is not healthy for the democratic process, and one way we can help restore that confidence in our parliamentary institutions is by being more open, particularly with how we ourselves use money. I would very much urge that people look at that website, because it is very easy to use. The information is readily there, and it is surely something that we should be able to change over to very quickly.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak about freedom of information issues in this parliament. However, I have to put on the record that, while the Greens will support this legislation, these are very small steps and it really is a missed opportunity to do the big-picture changes that FOI legislation in this country still needs.