Motion – Mandatory Disclosure of Official Ministerial Diaries
(1) Recognises that the regular publication of the Members of Cabinets’ official diaries provides an important accountability mechanism, by improving transparency and strengthening public confidence in government decision-making processes;
(2) notes that the regular and mandated disclosure of official ministerial diaries, detailing meetings with stakeholders, third-parties and registered lobbyists, is established practice across a range of parliaments including NSW, ACT, and Queensland;
(3) requests the Tasmanian government undertakes to introduce mandated requirements for the regular and routine disclosure of all Ministerial and Cabinet Secretary official diaries, detailing scheduled meetings, and their purpose, with stakeholders and organisations,
including third parties and lobbyists; and when developing this disclosure regime to also;
(a) ensure the process is informed by best practice examples of mandatory disclosure of ministerial diary requirements established in other jurisdictions, including examples of oversight and compliance requirements; and
(b) develop and publicly consult on a proposed Tasmanian mandatory disclosure of ministerial diaries scheme.
Speech delivered by Meg Webb MLC when commending debate on this motion, Tuesday 28 March 2023.
I will begin my contribution with the final clause of the motion, as it is important to emphasis what this motion is not seeking to do. Crucially, this motion does not seek to impose or lock in any particular model or regime of ministerial diary disclosure; nor does it seek to impose a specified implementation time frame. Instead, this motion requests that the state Government make a commitment to introduce this integrity transparency measure of mandated regular disclosure of ministerial diaries; and further, when the model is under development, the Government undertakes to publicly consult any proposed model and to ensure it is informed by the established and proven best practice models in other national and international examples.
If there is a silver lining to Tasmania potentially dragging its feet in developing a comprehensive, rigorous and modern integrity framework for the state, it is that there can be no excuse for any developments in this area not to be evidenced based due to the already implemented examples available interstate. I will briefly mention those later in my contribution.
To reiterate, this motion is not asking the Chamber, here and now, to impose any particular ministerial diary disclosure scheme upon the Government; but it does invite the Government to, in turn, invite the community and other governance experts and stakeholders to have a say in developing such a modern component of our integrity, transparency and accountability apparatus.
Returning to clause 1 of the motion, this outlines in broad brushstrokes, the ‘why’ of this proposal, which I will now speak to in some further detail.
At the outset, let us place the proposed ministerial diary disclosure reform within the broader lobbying and lobbyists regulation context. Lobbying in and of itself is not a bad thing. Indeed, I am very aware there can be a fine line between lobbying and advocacy. Lobbying can make a valid contribution to the political decision-making and policy formation process. It can bring valuable insights and practical knowledge to the discussion table.
However, it can and does, become problematic when those who get a seat at the table are disproportionately representing certain sectors and get to do so often and in a vacuum devoid potentially of countervailing perspectives. As members here would be aware, the Tasmanian Integrity Commission is currently reviewing our lobbying regulatory mechanisms, which at the moment, consists of the Register of Lobbyists and code of conduct.
In its 2022 submission to that process, the Grattan Institute reiterates the following:
Lobbying is an important part of the democratic ‘contest of ideas’. But this contest takes place on an uneven playing field if money and relationships can make a big difference to access and influence. Transparency around lobbying activity helps encourage a more level playing field.
That report from the Grattan Institute goes on to further state:
Lobbying oversight should aim to promote transparency of lobbying activity and accountability of public officials. Broader transparency measures give countervailing voices an opportunity to speak up, and encourage policy makers to seek out a wider range of views.
This can only be a good thing. Encouraging a policy and decision-making process that incorporates a wider range of views is not only more representative and fairer, it is just good and sensible practice. I am sure it is occurring in many offices and departments but what this motion calls for is a process by which the Tasmanian people can regularly check that it is occurring and if there are instances where the involvement and representation of certain vested interests appear to be out of balance with community and other interests, we are then in a position to be able to ask why.
To return to the Grattan Institute, I also highlight the following statement of the Institute’s submission, which goes specifically to the disclosure of ministerial diaries. It says this:
Ministerial offices should publish details of all official meetings, both in the office and offsite, all scheduled phone calls, and all events attended by a minister in an official capacity. ‘Official meetings’ should include those at which a minister was present as well as those held with ministerial advisers only. Records of meetings should identify those present and key issues discussed.
To be useful, ministerial diaries must be published in a timely manner and an accessible form. For example, all meetings for one month could be published by the end of the following month, as already happens in Queensland. The publication should be searchable and exportable, to facilitate scrutiny.
That was the Grattan Institute’s view and there was a range of submissions made to the Integrity Commission’s lobbying review consultation process of which many presented strong and considered cases also for beyond what was being covered by the Integrity Commission, the inclusion of a mandated ministerial or other government representative diary disclosure regime. Some of those who made such representations included TasCOSS and the Centre for Public Integrity. I disclose that I also included that in the submission I made to that process.
However, I do not intend to take up members’ time now by recounting all those relevant contributions. I certainly urge people with an interest to take a look at those submissions as they are informative and insightful across a range of integrity matters.
Instead, I wish to focus on key themes relevant to this motion, which were shared across many of the submissions also relating to transparency and inclusion on a level playing field. Those are the themes which consistently appear across most reviews, proposals and evaluations undertaken by those with governance expertise.
We would all be familiar with the expression of the disinfectant of sunlight or some variation of that concept. It may be of interest to members to know that this concept first appears in 1913 and is attributed to US lawyer, Louis Brandeis. His assertion, that, and I quote:
Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.
It was published that year in a Harper’s Weekly article called ‘What Publicity Can Do.’ He also explicitly wrote this:
If the broad light of day could be let in upon men’s actions, it would purify them as the sun disinfects.
Ms Forrest – Very ambitious.
Ms WEBB – Basically, Brandeis is tapping into the idea that it is human nature for people to change their behaviour, usually for the better, if they know they are being observed. Further, we may resist behaving in a manner that does not meet expected standards if we think that behaviour will attract attention or become a topic of discussion. While this may be perceived by some as a somewhat cynical attitude towards our fellow citizens, the fact remains that this phrase, coined over 100 years ago, still resonates; it still strikes a chord with us.
The other phrases we often hear in discussion on transparency include things like ‘secret deals’ and ‘behind closed doors’, ‘mate’s rates’ and those sorts of concepts. They are all colloquial examples of a similar framing of concern over nepotism or secrecy or the public interest getting lost or superseded by private vested interests.
A solution is pretty simple. In the first instance, unlock the doors, open the curtains, raise the blinds. Transparency, or the lack of it, is also linked with the other theme I wish to mention briefly, that is access to and inclusion on a level playing field. Without consistent transparency it is tricky to ascertain whether those who wish to take up the democratic right of seeking access to their government representatives or other senior officials are able to do so equitably, and that their requests are treated equitably.
We all here know how busy elected representatives can be, whether they are in government, in Cabinet, or even just a garden variety MP or MLC. It can be a challenge to find time to fit in all the meeting requests for many valid reasons. However, it is during those high-pressure type time frame scenarios that the decision-making and the filtering process of who is prioritised for access is so crucial. I am sure we would all like to think that all relevant stakeholders and perspectives are prioritised as equally as possible during policy development decision-making, to the extent that government officials actively seek out perspectives which may not have been represented, and those who proactively put themselves forward seeking meetings.
One submitter to the Integrity Commission’s lobbying regulatory reviews, Dr Belinda Edwards of the University of New South Wales, made a very interesting and useful point on the need to make visible the balance, or potentially the imbalance, of accessibility to decision‑makers. Dr Edwards states this in her submission:
In terms of how you make visible what the disparities of access are, and generate incentives to address imbalances, there are insights to be drawn from attempts to improve equity in other areas such as in addressing gender and racial equity. Work on gender equity has found one of the most effective ways to improve gender equity in organisations is to record and report what the level of equity is and to then have leaders have to announce it publicly, preferably in person. The focus on the issues and the desire to meet social expectations of equity, particularly in public, is an effective motivator to correct inequities.
I think that is a very useful correlation for us to consider. Effectively, transparency leads to accountability, leads to gaps being identified if they are there, whether deliberate or unintended, and provides an impetus to do something to fill those gaps.
I will briefly focus on another important point made by the Grattan Institute in the submission I quoted earlier. To reiterate, it said this:
To be useful, ministerial diaries must be published in a timely manner and in an accessible form.
The emphasis here that I am pointing to is on ‘timely’. This is an essential ingredient in order to effectively provide public trust and confidence in the decision-making processes on policy matters of the day, particularly major policy which requires potentially parliament’s deliberation.
As an example, the importance of timely disclosure became very evident to me last year when preparing for a debate on the long-awaited and significant Climate Change (State Action) Amendment Bill. In the absence that we currently have of regularly-published ministerial diaries, when preparing for that bill to be debated last year, in July 2022 I submitted a right to information request for dates, locations and attendee details of all ministerial diary appointments held since 19 May 2021 that were for the purpose of discussing climate change policy, including but not limited to the two bills that were to be debated in this Chamber.
The RTI request that I put in specified meetings with stakeholders, including but not limited to registered lobbyists, and one or more non-industry or community stakeholders. The request covered the ministries or offices of those holding the climate change portfolio, Energy and Renewables, and Resources, as well as the Premier and Treasurer.
The acceptance of those RTI requests that I gained illustrates that in this context, clearly, the release of ministerial diaries passed the public interest test. However, obtaining that information deemed to be in the public interest was a different matter.
As I flagged earlier, I submitted this RTI request in July last year. As members may recall, the climate change bill was debated in the other place during August and September, and received its first reading in this Chamber on 7 September. We got to the debate in the third reading in November, with the third reading being 9 November.
In terms of a time line, I did receive some of the RTI requests and responses in September, prior to the debate in this Chamber, but it was not until 31 January 2023 that I received the ministerial diary RTI responses from at least one of those portfolio offices I mentioned earlier. Six months after the request was made, I finally received the requested information. More crucially, the information arrived three to four months after it would have been pertinent to the public debate and the parliamentary debate underway in this place.
That is where the problem arises. That delay is really not good enough. It undermines the ethos of our RTI act. It also potentially undermines our responsibility in this place, to be as fully informed as possible on matters before us for our consideration in the parliament.
This is where a mandated regular release of ministerial diaries would save time and effort, take pressure off our RTI regime and ensure a more timely availability of relevant information to the public and to decision-makers even in this place.
It all comes down to the shared expectation that in a functioning democracy, people deserve to have all pertinent information available to ensure they can make an informed decision at the time they are required to make that decision. That is a principle that would apply, for example; to voters knowing about political donations before they cast their ballot at the ballot box; or even to this parliament to have information available before we are debating legislation that might be of relevance.
Moving on to discussing the points raised in clause (2) of the motion, specifically focusing on ministerial diary disclosure models that have been implemented elsewhere.
I had earlier circulated a short background briefing paper to members, which includes some information on those interstate models already implemented. I mention some brief details of those here:
Firstly, in the ACT, since 2018, the ACT has required agencies and ministers to comply with the Open Access Information Scheme, provided for under the territories Freedom of Information Act. The OAIS is designed to increase government accountability and promote a culture of openness and transparency in government. This push model for access to information intends to reduce formal requests for access to some government information and enables the ACT community to access government information promptly at the lowest reasonable cost. Along with other disclosure logs, and ACT minister must disclose and publish a copy of the minister’s diary that sets out all meeting, events and functions attended by the minister that relate to the minister’s responsibilities. Personal events or meetings need not be included and ministerial diaries in the ACT are currently published as required on the ACT Government Open Access Information website.
In New South Wales it has been in place a little longer. On 13 May 2014, New South Wales Liberal premier, Michael Baird, at the time, announced a package of reforms to strengthen the regulation of lobbying activities and to ensure that contact between lobbyists and government officials is conducted in accordance with public expectations of transparency, integrity and honesty.
The package of reforms included the requirement that ministers publish quarterly diary summaries of scheduled meetings with external organisations and portfolio related activities.
A year following the introduction of mandated ministerial diary disclosure, a 12 month review was undertaken by the Department of Premier and Cabinet, which recommended a range of improvements, such as inclusion of third party lobbyists and the expansion of meetings to include phone calls, amongst other recommendations.
A premier’s memorandum sets out the requirement for all ministers to regularly publish extracts from their diaries, detailing scheduled meetings held with stakeholders, external organisations, third party lobbyists and the name of their client and individuals.
Scheduled meetings include meetings scheduled to take place in person or by video conference, teleconference or telephone call. Ministerial diary exerpts in New South Wales are published one month after the end of each quarter and include details of all scheduled meetings of a minister involving the discussion of a matter that may be considered by the minister, whether formally or informally, in his or her role as portfolio minister or a member of Cabinet. A range of matters are exempt, including meetings that are strictly personal, electorate or party-political matters, social or public functions or events and matters for which there is no overriding public interest against disclosure.
Ministerial disclosures are published in New South Wales on the Department of Premier and Cabinet website.
Ms WEBB – Welcome to the students.
The third jurisdiction I will briefly mention as an example here is Queensland. The Queensland government’s Ministerial Handbook details the following requirements surrounding ministerial diaries:
Ministers are required to proactively disclose on a monthly basis portfolio related meetings and events.
For any meeting with a registered lobbyist or any person working for the lobbyist in any capacity, other than administrative staff, the diary must also include details about all attendees and a short description of the subject matter of the meeting.
Personal, electorate or party political meetings or events, medial events and interviews and information contrary to public interest (e.g. meetings regarding sensitive law enforcement, public safety or whistle‑blower matters) are not to be released.
Ministers’ diaries are public records under the Public Records Act 2002 and as such should be retained and managed in accordance with the Retention & Disposal Schedule at [the relevant section] of this Handbook.
Additionally, and this is an interesting element for consideration, the Queensland Opposition Leader also releases extracts from their official diary in accordance with guidelines for the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, monthly extracts from the diary of the Leader of the Opposition are published on the Queensland Parliament’s website where records are currently available going back to January 2013.
That is a fairly quick and rudimentary highlights reel of some of our fellow national jurisdictions’ innovations in allowing sunlight into the ministerial room and they depict that there is a range of approaches and mechanisms that could be put in place. We may or may not agree with each of these models. There may be elements some think do not go far enough to invest in a level playing field or timely transparency, while there may be other characteristics of these models that people may consider unnecessary. However, despite their individual differences, all those jurisdictions mentioned and many others to boot, have ministerial diary disclosure regimes. They share the fundamental principle and commitment to the fact that citizens deserve to know who is in the ministerial room, when and for what purpose.
It is interesting to note that across these three jurisdictions, Labor, Liberal, National and Greens ministers have all complied with these transparency measures. Members here may be surprised to know that ministerial diary disclosure is not a radically new or unheard-of concept, even for Tasmania. In fact, we have a relatively recent example close to home.
It may interest members to know that a little over 12 years ago, the former Labor premier, David Bartlett, did of his own volition begin publicly disclosing his ministerial diary. This decision seemed to follow a successful freedom of information – as it was called then – request in 2009. As I understand it, once the freedom of information request was accepted as in the public interest and the requested four months of diary information provided, then premier, Mr Bartlett, then chose to continue releasing his ministerial diary as a matter of routine throughout 2010.
This aligned well with the broad push from then premier, Mr Bartlett, to implement, a 10‑point plan to restore trust in government. It was an effort which included the overhaul of the RTI legislation, the creation of the Integrity Commission, the Public Interest Disclosure Act and the creation of a ministerial code of conduct. However else we might assess elements of Mr Bartlett’s time in office, without a doubt, he significantly strengthened the architecture of integrity and democracy in this state.
On the matter of publishing his ministerial diaries, unfortunately the practice was never incorporated into the Ministerial Code of Conduct, so, it stalled, and was discontinued it would appear by the government, presumably once Mr Bartlett had resigned from office.
The Bartlett diaries provide a good example on two points: one, it has and can occur in Tasmania without the sky falling in; and two, for it to genuinely result in meaningful cultural change, it needs to be mandated as a formal requirement. An opt-in, opt-out dependent on who is in power type of model is, quite frankly, ineffectual and not really an option that we would consider appropriate going forward.
Before I sum up, there are a couple of other key points I will make relating to the motion. The first one is regarding the idea that transparency actually provides protection. Other than the commonsense and fairness inherent in disclosing those who have access to our government representatives, this transparency reform of disclosure of ministerial diaries can also assist participants in meetings by defusing the perception or the risk of possible undue influence being wielded.
The lifting of the blinds and the injection of sunlight into the room can reassure people that nothing shady is going on. Improved transparency is about reducing the perception of ‑ and any actual – unfair advantage that may influence government decision-making processes to benefit a few. It would be a fair assumption that governments and ministers of all persuasions, and senior departmental officials, would probably welcome this assistance.
Another point I will touch on is that the routine and rigorous and timely ministerial disclosure process would also alleviate pressure on our right to information processes. I can imagine the sighs of relief that may be uttered by many RTI officers in departments who would be freed‑up to focus on other pending RTI requests if matters related to diaries were taken out of the mix.
We have precedents acknowledging the public interest, and the right to this information being provided through our RTI system, and currently we insert an unnecessary middle person in that process to what we know is our overburdened RTI process. As other jurisdictions have, we could remove this middle person mechanism between the government of the day and the community that they have been elected to represent by the introduction of a standard, mandated, systematic ministerial diary disclosure scheme.
It is worth briefly touching on the standard reaction which we often hear when proposals are put forward to strengthen our integrity and transparency apparatus. That is something I have heard before and it goes along these lines: there is no proof of any wrongdoing occurring; there is no proof that we have systemic corruption in this state. We do not need to take action to improve our performance.
I am hoping that in today’s debate that sort of sentiment will not bog us down or derail the discussion. I think it is a fairly spurious point to make. We may not have flagrant, recent examples of documented instances of corruption or serious criminal behaviour in our governance. However, there is an ongoing decline in trust and confidence in, and a growing frustration with, our systems of governance in this state. A large part of that decline in confidence and growing frustration is with the opaque cloud under which key policy and funding decisions remain swaddled.
The perception persists – rightly or wrongly – that behind that opaque cloud, decisions can be made, and perhaps are made, based on personal networks and who you know. To put it bluntly, any cry of, ‘there is nothing to see here’ simply will not wash as an acceptable standard’. There most definitely is something to see here. Tasmanians deserve to see who is in the ministerial room when policy and funding decisions, grant provisions, contract arrangements are being discussed. This potentially provides insight into any stakeholders who perhaps did not have access or did not participate in those decisions. Parliamentarians deserve to see this too, and in fact, it is arguable that we have a responsibility to ensure we do see who was and was not in the ministerial room seeking to influence policy decisions, the outcome of which may be placed before us to vote on in this place.
Lastly, on the ‘nothing to see here’ attitude, disclosure is the simplest manner by which to corroborate that there really is not anything untoward to be seen. As we get told in other contexts, if have nothing to hide then you should not have a problem here. That appears to be what was demonstrated by former Labor premier, David Bartlett’s approach when he set a precedent for Tasmania by choosing to release his ministerial diary.
Ms WEBB – Madam Deputy President, another query many people may have when considering the need for transparency of ministerial diaries is whether we risk duplicating other areas of lobbying regulation reform. I recognise that is a valid point for consideration. However, I would point to the interstate jurisdictions that I have previously discussed – the ACT, New South Wales and Queensland – all of which have stronger and tighter lobbyist declarations and register regulations in place than Tasmania does while also having mandated ministerial diary disclosure requirements. Clearly, those jurisdictions see ministerial diary disclosure as complementary to and part of their holistic lobbyist regulation regimes, rather than duplicating or competing with those other requirements.
As noted by the Tasmania Integrity Commission during its recent public consultation process on reforming Tasmania’s lobbying regulatory system, the regular and timely public disclosure of ministerial diaries can provide an important cross-referencing mechanism. The Integrity Commission’s overview of submissions report, which was published in October 2022, states the following:
Public officers disclosing diaries was widely supported [in submissions received], other than in the whole-of-government response. Reasons given for the benefits of disclosing diaries were the ability of the public and the Commission to ‘cross-check’. This matching exercise, though resource intensive, serves an auditing purpose that the Crime and Corruption Commission of Queensland undertakes to encourage the idea of mutual obligations between lobbyists and the lobbied.
To ensure I do not inadvertently misrepresent the Integrity Commission’s position on this, I note that although that although the Commission provides in principle support to publishing ministerial diaries as a ‘matter of good practice for government transparency’, it also identifies limitations with some established examples of ministerial diary disclosure schemes, such as too narrow a scope by just focusing on ministers rather than including other public representatives. Hence, the motion recommends that in developing a Tasmanian ministerial diary disclosure regime, investigations of those implemented in other jurisdictions be undertaken so we can identify their strengths and weaknesses to inform the development of a viable, robust and enforceable scheme here.
Further, as also pointed out by the Integrity Commission, it is beyond the Commission’s jurisdiction to require ministerial diary disclosure. It is not within their power. It would be up to the Government and the broader parliament to progress this recognised important transparency mechanism as part of our modern and robust integrity apparatus.
To reiterate, making this proposal in the motion today is not about any accusation of current or previous governments of any particular wrongdoing, nor is it about imposing any predetermined prescriptive model for mandated ministerial diary disclosures. It is about forging an inclusive plan by which to modernise and make more robust our integrity framework. By doing so, we will be investing in both strengthening our accountability apparatus, as well as the Tasmanian community’s trust and confidence in our democratic system of governance.
Importantly, this proposed reform would complement other current integrity reforms, including the lobbyist regulation in Tasmania and political donations disclosure that is on its way through this place. Ultimately, getting the ball rolling in an inclusive and collaborative manner on this particular proposed integrity reform will benefit all Tasmanians.
Without doubt, the routine and timely release of ministerial diaries can help protect decision makers, as well as those participating in legitimate advocacy, in any contest of ideas on policy and funding decisions in our democratic system. Not everyone can get a foot in the ministerial door on matters that interest or affect them, and not everyone wants to have a foot in that door. However, raising the blinds on who is in the ministerial room when policy, funding and other matters are being discussed, can ameliorate community concerns of undue influence being wielded by some vested interests during those discussions, or over public representatives.
At the very least – as highlighted by Dr Belinda Edwards’ reference to the demonstrably positive impact gender participation reporting has had on inclusivity – routine diary disclosures may encourage public representatives to more actively seek out as broad a range as possible of perspectives and experiences to provide input into Government decision-making processes.
I thank members for their consideration of this motion and I look forward to hearing others’ contributions on this important proposed transparency idea.
To close, I refer to a report published last year by the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission – Influence and Transparency in the Queensland Public Sector. In it, the Crime and Corruption Commission states that:
The public expects government decisions to be made in the best interests of the community, and that their state and local governments will be open to ideas and advocacies that enhance the quality of those decisions. For all views to be properly considered, access to decision-makers must be equitable and transparent. This will give the public confidence that no improper influence has affected the outcome, and will reduce the potential risk of corruption.
That is what this motion is about, Madam Deputy President – getting the ball rolling on providing the Tasmanian public with that confidence that no improper influence has affected the outcome of Government decisions, and that they are, and will continue to be, made instead in the best interests of the community. Nothing more and nothing less.
I commend the motion to the House.
Motion passed the Legislative Council unamended.
