Last year, on 2 July, I wrote about the demise of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) and the formation of the National Cabinet. https://doesthismakesense.blog/2020/07/02/federation-fractured-or-fixed/

I made a few points about what I forsaw as the likely realisation of the new body once the inital euphoria had settled and made a couple of comments about its governing prinicples and even suggested a review of how it was going some 18 months to three years down the track.

So it is with a heavy (still shrivelled) heart that I note that last week, the federal government introduced into the parliament the delightfully named COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2021.

The Bill has three parts. The first two are more of the nature of housekeeping as far as I can ascertain. The provisions relate to the tidying up of legisation that referred to the COAG Reform Fund, ministerial councils and other COAG-related entities in legislation. As these entities no longer exist, this bit of housekeeping is probably waranted. But that is not what I came here to discsus.

The third schedule to the Bill attacks the Administrative Appeals Tribunal’s (AAT’s) decision that the National Cabinet is, in fact, not a cabinet in the true sense of the word in terms of pariamentary workings. (I slyly point out that this was one reason for my joy in last year’s announcement).

One last jibe if I may. It’s not a Cabinet like those of us well inculcated in public service advice and policy would think of it. The processes etc around it are completely different and while some of the changes – possibly no more communiques at the end of each meeting – might seem like a win – a little more transparency could lead to a lot more accountability and, as a tax payer and citizen, that thought gladdens my tiny shrivelled heart. Just sayin’

I had surmised it would mean, rightly I thought – and so did Senator Rex Patrick whose Freedom of Information (FOI) request lead to the AAT’s decision – that much of what was discussed in these meetings could be subject to FOI requests. The AAT agreed, saying that just because someone (oh let’s say the Prime Minister and his departmental Secretary) said it was a cabinet and called it a cabinet that it was a cabinet. So miffed by the snub, and I could venture, fearing more requests for information from the meetings, this government has moved with a haste not normally its strength and produced this little gem of a Bill. It is only as long as it is because they fortutiously had some of the housekeeping they could add to it and probably in an effort to downplay what the main intent of the Bill is, put the housekeeping first and hid the definitional changes on the final page. Maybe they thought this would reduce the scrutiny. And for good measure, give it a very unattractive title.

Schedule 3 enacts provisions designed to shield the workings of the National Cabinet and its committees from the scutiny we were hoping for.

Part 1 of Schedule 3 variously describes a new definition of cabinet in a number of pieces of legisation – notably in the Freedom of Information Act 1982 as (a) a committee of the Cabinet (including the committee known as the National Cabinet); and (b) a committee (however described) of the National Cabinet.

This definition is also established in a raft of other related Acts.

The amendment to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 works to explicitly excise disclosure of deliberations or decisions of a cabinet as descibed in these amendments.

It is also worth noting the final paragraphs of the schedule –

Part 3—Application provision

33 Application provision

(1) The amendments of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 made by Part 1 of this Schedule apply in relation to the following requests for access to a document (regardless of when the document was brought into existence):

(a) a request that is made on or after the commencement of this item;

(b) a request that was made, but not finally determined, before that commencement.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), a request has not been finally determined unless all rights of review and appeal in relation to the request have expired or have been exhausted.

So there it is. This government’s ringing in the changes true to form – if you can possibly deny access to information do so. Oh, and if you can make it retrospective, even better. This is just another in a litany of closing off avenues for scrutiny of government actions and decisions. It is not good enough. Good government is, in part, reliant on close scrutiny and understanding and questioning of decisions and policies. Secrecy is no way to conduct a democracy. And the things we are being asked to allow secrecy over! Why oh why is it that payments in the first round of JobKeeper aren’t subject to some degree of transparency around who got them, what companies did not see a reduction in their businesses as they predicted and so on? If this was baked into the inital round of payments – who thought that was a good idea?

And what about scrutiny of parliament through an anti corruption Commission – one that loooks at all activities, not just those of nonelected officials?

And why would we want that? Oh maybe airport land acquisions, grants programs and oh yes, car parks! (And JobKeeper).

I am entirely dismayed by the nerve of this government in this respect.

I’m pretty sure the good Senator Patrick will not be voting for this Bill – or at least for the definitional changes and well, pretty much all of Schedule 3. Whether he and other non-coalition members can block this outrageous move I don’t know. Maybe we should ask.