The Howard government & instruments of accountability

Abstract

It has long been a truism that Australian democracy is subject to the rule of law and that
 all governments, be they Labor or Liberal, do not govern with a blank cheque but rather
 are subject to legislative restraint and Parliamentary oversight. This report seeks to
 examine the Howard Government's performance against four such key instruments of
 accountability, which are:
 1. Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918;
 2. Freedom of Information Act 1982;
 3. Questions on Notice; and
 4. Senate Order on Departmental and Agency Contracts.
 Justice Michael Kirby has recently observed: 'Governance and good governance have
 attracted many definitions. But the notion remains a "contested concept"' 1
 • In the modem
 context it is increasingly apparent that the dimensions and density of government is now
 considerably vast. So much so that it is increasingly difficult to hold accountable an
 increasingly expanding collection of government activities and responsibilities. In this
 environment, the contestability of good governance receives added debate. However,
 good governance always needs to locate accountability at its core - no matter how distant
 its periphery is growing.
 This report concludes that against all the four selected accountability instruments the
 Howard Government performs at a level inconsistent with good governance. In short,
 these conclusions are:
 1. The Howard Government refuses to comply with the spirit of openness advanced
 by the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the CE Act) in regard to the reporting
 and publication of federal advertising expenditure. It has actively and frequently
 used public finances in order to further political objectives whilst obscuring the
 amounts spent. The result is not even the government itself can provide the total
 amounts that have been used.
 2. The Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act) is increasingly becoming an oxymoron. Trends 
 show requests are more than ever being refused or deterred by costs whilst the use of conclusive 
 certificates effectively renders access to information impossible.
 3. Questions on notice are increasingly being avoided and unanswered. Political influences make 
 their answering less likely to be forthcoming in a useful time period and government ministers do 
 not assign them adequate priority.
 4. Whilst many agencies make best efforts to comply with the Senate Order on Departmental and 
 Agency Contracts, some habitually fail to comply. Confidentiality clauses are also often misapplied 
 making the increasing scope of government operations being contracted out subject to unnecessary 
 commercial­ in-confidence protection .
 
 In short, this report recommends that:
 1. The CE Act and other relevant guidelines be reinvigorated in order to de­ politicize government 
 advertising and allow greater accountability over the expenditure of taxpayers' money.
 2. An independent monitor be created to facilitate and promote the use of the FOi Act. The use of 
 conclusive certificates needs to be brought in line with community expectations.
 3. House of Representatives and Senate Orders be amended to require the timely answer of QONs.
 4. The Australian National Audit Office be given greater access to documentation supporting 
 departments' use of confidentiality provisions in all contracts with external contractors.