I’m travelling today and tomorrow, so just something brief now, and perhaps nothing tomorrow.
The government announced a couple of days ago that
From January, all Government ministers will have to release details of their internal and external meetings.
Minister for State Services (Open Government) Chris Hipkins said Cabinet had agreed to the release of summary information from their ministerial diaries from January 2019 onwards, with the first publication in February 2019.
To be specific
For each meeting in scope, the summary would list: date, time (start and finish), brief description, location, who the meeting was with, and the portfolio. The monthly summary will be published on the Beehive website within 15 business days following the end of each month.
It is a significant step forward, and will (or should) strengthen scrutiny and accountability of ministers. There are some exceptions, and potential scope for the rules to be bent, but it goes beyond the publications practice for ministers in the UK and in New South Wales. Together with the decision to pro-actively release Cabinet papers, it is another step towards delivering on the commitment to greater openness and transparency in government.
The (largely taxpayer-funded) lobby group Transparency International – the ones who nonetheless host senior public servants giving secret speeches – has put out a statement welcoming the move.
“We are pleased that the Government acknowledges the need for transparency from its Ministers. Transparency is the antidote for corruption, every action they take makes New Zealand a better home for her citizens and reinforces New Zealand’s leadership in the global fight against corruption,” stated TINZ Chief Executive Officer Julie Haggie.
They suggest this should only be a first step
“We hope it is not long before all Parliamentarians are required to release their diaries and this requirement is codified in law so that it cannot be undone in the future by politicians fearful of transparency,” [chair Suzanne] Snively adds.
Not to disagree with that, but in many respects we have less to fear – in our sort of political system – from backbench members of Parliament than from senior officials (and even judges) exercising in some cases huge amounts of discretionary power. Sometimes that is the ability to regulate directly, but even if they don’t have that particular power then the enforcement (or otherwise) of laws and rules made elsewhere opens up the potential for inappropriate influence, or even corruption.
The specific case I’m most interested in is the Governor of the Reserve Bank. He will shortly lose his exclusive power to set and adjust the OCR himself, although he will still be hugely influential in monetary policy (and people will be keen to bend his ear or get the inside word). But even once the new legislation is passed the Governor will retain his, largely untrammelled, powers as individual decisionmaker in regulating banks, and in enforcing (or not) a wide range of regulatory provisions affecting banks, non-banks, and insurers. There is a great deal of money at stake in many of these decisions.
I’m not suggesting that anything very untoward goes on – although successive Governors have each been involved in some questionable episodes. But we (a) need to keep it that way, and (b) gain confidence in the way an institution is being run partly by means of transparency. And what is good enough for elected Ministers of the Crown (who face scrutiny in Parliament every day) is surely a standard that should also be met by powerful unelected, largely unaccountable, officials. I’d encourage the Governor to take the lead and announce that he will adopt the same standard, and if he doesn’t do so the Board and the Minister should prevail on him to reconsider. If such transparency is good enough for ministers, it should be a standard expectation for the top tier of public officials.
Hope springs eternal, but I’m not very optimistic that the Governor will see such transparency as a positive virtue. Readers will recall that the Ombudsman recently ruled in the Governor’s favour, allowing the Bank to withhold internal analysis and advice prepared for a Monetary Policy Statement at which the then (acting) Governor announced what the Bank was assuming about the impact of some major policy initiatives of the new government (including the now mired in controversy Kiwibuild), with no supporting detail or analysis. Among the Ombudsman’s justifications was that, although his decision wasn’t made until almost a year after the request, his decision had to relate to the date on which my request had been made (ie very shortly after the relevant MPS). To test this standard, I then re-lodged the request, so that a new decisions would have to be made about this analysis and information but on the basis that it is now a year old.
Absolutely not to my surprise, the Bank again rejected the request. They do this even though, across the road, very similar sorts of background notes and briefing papers prepared for the Minister of Finance by Treasury staff as part of the Budget process are routinely, and pro-actively, released.
The Bank does condescend to observe that
In considering how long it is reasonable to withhold information of this nature, the Reserve Bank recognises that as time passes then release is less likely to have an inhibiting effect.
but concludes that a lag of more like five to ten years might be appropriate. It would be laughable if it weren’t so serious. According to the Bank, citizens are not entitled to see background papers on such matters ( and in the end the Bank’s analysis of Kiwibuild probably didn’t change the OCR decision materially) even a year after they were written (using taxpayer resources). It makes a mockery of the principles of the Official Information Act, further undermining the already limited accountability of an already over-mighty public official.
Ministers have set an encouraging lead. The Treasury sets a good example around papers feeding into the Budget process. It is surely time for the Governor – encouraged by the Board, soon to be more directly answerable to the Minister through a directly-appointed chair – to get with 21st century standards of transparency and accountability.