When the Labor Government took office, it did so with a clear promise that there would be greater transparency. Rex Patrick looks at the latest Labor secrecy scandal over Cbus that shows political self-interest counts far more than a promise of accountable government.

In Opposition, some Coalition MPs are rediscovering the practices of political scrutiny they found so irksome when they were in government. This is a good thing.  

Our Westminster-style parliamentary democracy needs active non-government MPs and senators who are prepared not just to criticise government policy, but who are prepared to do the work required to make government accountable not only for what it does, but how it goes about the business of public administration.

When Senator Andrew Bragg asked the Senate in October 2023 to support an order for production of correspondence, emails and communications between Cbus Super Fund and the Treasurer, the Senate agreed.

An order for production of documents is a power of a House of Parliament that goes all the way back to at least 1856. It allows a House to oversight the government, it’s policies and administration, on behalf of the people. 

Section 49 of the Constitution gives legal force to an order.

Ministers can refuse to respond to an order, in whole or in part, by advancing a claim of ‘public interest immunity’. Given the importance of these orders, the advancement of a ‘public interest immunity’ must be done with precision and care. No minister should advance what is merely a ‘political interest immunity’.

A return to the Senate

Twenty days after the Senate made the order Bragg had asked for, and in compliance with the timeline sought by the Senate, Treasurer Jim Chalmers responded releasing some information, but telling the Senate that the balance would not be released as the documents sought “would provide an unfair insight into CBUS’ private opinions” and disclosure “also has the potential to damage the frankness and candour of future consultation processes”.

Caught out

Bragg also had a Freedom of Information (FOI) request in for the same documents, which were originally refused to him on various harm-to-business grounds.

Last month the Information Commissioner finished a review of the FOI decision and found in favour of Bragg. Albeit after much delay, the full documentation set, with a few redactions of names to protect privacy, was released to Bragg.

The Information Commissioner’s decision serves as an indictment on the Treasurer – showing that he conspicuously lacks judgement or, much more likely, has no respect for the Senate and was engaging in deliberate obstruction tactics.

The fact that Cbus’ chair is Wayne Swan, a former Labor Treasurer and current ALP National President, and a political mentor to Chalmers, makes this whole thing smell.

It appears the desire for secrecy related, ironically to Cbus’ desire for secrecy as it was lobbying the Treasurer to exclude stamp duty in its fees and costs disclosures relating to Labor’s housing initiative, the Housing Affordability Future Fund – ergo secretly lobbying for secrecy.

In any case, this story focuses on process and Chalmers’ actions made a mockery of parliamentary process.

How is it that Mr Bragg, as a private citizen, can get documents under FOI that Senator Bragg could not using the powers of the Senate?

Ultimately Chalmers’ Senate betrayal is a betrayal of the Australian public – who are the real source of the Senate’s power and purpose.

Offensive denial

What makes matters worse is the nature of the transparency failure in this instance.

People understand the need to keep sensitive private business information confidential – that is their trade secrets and their detailed financial information. But the idea that a business is allowed to secretly lobby a government is nothing short of offensive.

And that’s what Chalmer’s was trying to protect. Consistent with his claim that the materials were the “private opinions” of Cbus, Bragg’s FOI reveals that Cbus were trying to influence the Government on public policy. 

There is no sin in lobbying. Businesses are quite entitled to put their perspectives to the government. But when trying to influence public policy, there should be no confidentiality entitlement.

The whole incident reveals how out of touch Chalmers is.

Behind closed doors

Finally, one other aspect of this scandal is noteworthy. Chalmers claimed the material could not be released because it would damage the future supply of information to the government.

What a load of rubbish!

One can expect disclosure of information given to the police by an informant to damage the future supply of information by other informants. But that can’t be said of businesses trying to influence government.

There’s a huge industry in Canberra focussed on influencing government on behalf of industries, corporations and other interests. Are companies really going to stop lobbying in the face of some transparency? Of course not! 

The Australian public is entitled to see what businesses are saying to influence policy, not least to allow the public to oppose (or even endorse) their views. Fairness demands that.

Treasurer Chalmers would like to keep all that business lobbying behind closed doors. So much for transparency. Perhaps things have not changed very much under Labor.  

Australia’s economy grim – but so is the rest of the world

This post was originally published on Michael West.