Article- Data gap: hundreds of ministerial meetings potentially not publicly disclosed

Bob Burton

The Tasmanian government is avoiding the public disclosure of potentially hundreds of meetings a year by excluding information from ministerial appointments diaries it would release if requested under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

Recently released RTI documents included a one-page extract from Premier Jeremy Rockliff’s appointments diary for November 18, 2024. The document listed a schedule of 10 meetings and events, including two staff meetings, a meeting of cabinet and another of all Liberal MPs. The document, which included the scheduled duration of each meeting, was released in late March after an unidentified MP requested records relating to the premier’s diary for that day.

The public version of the premier’s diary that was recently published by the Department of Premier and Cabinet lists just six events on that day, excluding the staff meetings and the cabinet and Liberal MPs meetings. It also excludes the time and duration of each meeting.

The discrepancy between the two versions suggests the ministerial appointment diaries of Tasmanian government ministers potentially exclude hundreds of meetings a year. A spokesperson for Rockliff did not respond to a request for clarification on the difference between the two records.

1700 diary entries – but how much information?

A Tasmanian Inquirer review of 1709 entries in the ministerial diaries for the October to December 2024 period reveals basic details are routinely not disclosed, in contrast to what is released in response to RTI requests.

Ministerial appointment diaries adopt a uniform classification system for entries: meetings; attendance at community events and conferences; site visits including businesses; and media conferences.

Of 181 ministerial site visits in the quarter, only one meeting had its purpose disclosed. That happened when information was added  into the wrong field in Eric Abetz’s diary. None of the diary entries for 593 events attended by ministers during the quarter included a description of the purpose for attending.

While the purpose for some listed meetings is obvious, for many it is opaque. For example, it is not explained why Rockliff visited Corvus Energy in Seattle during a trade mission to the US in October, or what he was doing at Moonah Newsagency in November.

The purpose of half the 756 meetings disclosed is listed either as “various issues” or “various matters”. Other entries were equally obscure, stating the purpose as “update on activities” or  “general update”.

None of the minister’s diaries disclose the time or duration of any appointments. The names of those attending meetings are limited to state and federal MP. Some ministers reveal the purpose of meetings with councils, unions, individual citizens and non-government organisations.

“We shouldn’t need leaks to fill in the public record. It’s not good for governance. It’s not good for trust within bureaucracies.”

Dr Richard Herr

The diaries rarely disclose the reasons for meetings with companies, business lobby groups or PR firms. When Madeleine Ogilvie met with Font PR Rockliff in December the topic of discussion was listed as “various issues”. The following week, Guy Barnett met with Font PR and the Australian Convenience Store Association to discuss “various issues”. It is unclear which of his five portfolios the discussion related to.

Eric Abetz is the only minister to occasionally describe the reason for meetings with companies, such as an October 2024 meeting with the private bus company Kinetic to discuss “Metro Burnie” and a meeting with Britton Timber to discuss “sawlog supply”.

What next?

Bill Browne, the director of the Australia Institute’s Democracy & Accountability Program, backs public disclosure of the appointment diaries of ministers and their staff. “Lobbyists can use privileged and secret access to decision-makers to gain preferential treatment, and these meetings can be used by the government to bypass public consultation,” he said.

On September 10, the Legislative Council supported a motion by independent MP Meg Webb calling on the government to undertake a “comprehensive” public consultation process on a best practice model for ministerial diary disclosure. The motion asked the government to report back to the Legislative Council by November 28. Five months after the deadline, the government has still not responded. Tasmanian Inquirer asked Rockliff if and when the government would respond to the motion but received no response.

Browne said state parliaments had the power to compel the production of documents to ensure the government is open and accountable. “If the government continues to ignore the Legislative Council’s motion the chamber could consider an order for documents,” he said.

Dr Richard Herr, an adjunct senior lecturer in the Faculty of Law at the University of Tasmania, said the government’s approach to releasing ministerial diaries was “token transparency”.

Herr said the Legislative Council could establish an inquiry into the government’s approach. “While they couldn’t summons ministers, they can summons the people who advise the government … If the diary is deliberately obfuscatory, they could ask ‘well, why is it that you don’t want us to know more about this meeting or that set of meetings’,” he said.

“We shouldn’t need leaks to fill in the public record. It’s not good for governance. It’s not good for trust within bureaucracies. They may not like it that [releasing meeting details] puts a neon sign over an issue that could give rise to Right to Information requests, but that’s a lot better than some of the alternatives.”