Governments in Australia must realise that the mere attaining of a majority in one house of parliament does not give them the right to rule as a dictatorship. In a liberal democracy there are checks and balances which should it make governments accountable during the period of governance in addition to the ultimate accountability at election time.
This week, we have had examples at both Territory and national level of governments withdrawing from their duties of disclosure.
At the federal level, the clerk of the Senate, Harry Evans, has highlighted how the second term of the Howard government has been more secretive than most of its predecessors. In the latest edition of Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, Mr Evans noted that in the second term of the Howard Government one in five orders for government documents had been refused, a greater rate than previous governments.
At the territory level, the Ombudsman found that the Chief Minister’s Department had breached the Freedom of Information Act when responding to requests from Opposition Leader Jon Stanhope for access to documents about Bruce Stadium.
Governments frequently argue that people who prepare advice for government or have commercial dealings with government will be less forthcoming if they feel that their advice or dealings will be made public. The argument is twaddle. It is an excuse for government not to disclose to the public mistakes or underhandedness. In the case of the Bruce Stadium the Government wanted to take all the honour and glory of creating a new stadium without carrying any of the opprobrium of owning up to how much it cost. More generally, secrecy allows corruption to breed. Whenever a government seeks to hide behind the label commercial-in-confidence, the public has every right to suspect the possibility of corruption – special deals for special mates.
Rather than being a catalyst for a lack of frankness, the possibility of later publication would make those giving advice more careful about the truth and make governments keener to ensure that they spend taxpayers money in the wisest way possible.
There are very few reasons for governmental documents to be kept secret. There are some rare national-security issues. There are good reasons to keep tender documents secret until after the tender is let, but once contracts have been signed with government they should be made public. Companies not willing to deal on that basis should not tender. The ACT taxpayer would be in a much better position now if the whole Bruce Stadium process had been made public along the way.
The lesson for Government is simple. If someone in government feels a dealing needs to be kept secret, there is probably something wrong with it. An often-sought exemption from freedom of information requirement by government is that disclosure would affect the good workings of government. This is a dangerous exemption and should be abolished.
At the Federal level, the Senate has had a steady and welcome increase in muscle flexing during both Labor and Coalition Governments. Both have been discomforted by it, but the public has been the winner.
Most recently Senate estimates hearings have ranged more widely than questions about the Budget and annual reports.
We are fortunate that at the Federal level and in the ACT, that Parliament is not a rubber stamp. This is because the Executive Government does not have a majority in the Senate or in the Assembly. It means that Governments can be exposed before they get too arrogant and before abuse of power becomes commonplace.
In the case of the ACT, the Government clearly had something to hide over Bruce Stadium and the Government will have to justify that at election time.
Federally, Opposition senators have been quite skilful in extracting embarrassing information from Government. The test will come when the tables are turned – will future Governments realise it is better not to do deals or make arrangements that do not bear the scrutiny of publicity.