We all know the federal government has a problem with secrecy. It’s become immeasurably worse under Prime Minister Scott Morrison, whose obsession with keeping the public in the dark is behind almost every political move he makes. But it’s also become clear that Canberra lags most states — and other countries — in basic transparency.

The public is waking up to the issue, with calls for a bona fide federal integrity commission growing. But there are other things the government could do to bring even a basic level of transparency to government decision-making.

A mechanism already in place in Queensland and New South Wales would be an easy way to get basic details about how power and influence play out in the nation’s capital. In both states, ministers are required to release the details of their diaries — who they met or spoke to, and when the conversations took place. 

The rules in Queensland and NSW have been working for years to provide insights into ministerial decision-making. So why should it be different for federal politicians? 

The power of access

Who ministers are speaking to and meeting leading up to a decision is obviously of significant public interest. It can shine a light on who is seeking to influence a decision, and who is being locked out of those conversations.  

Of course it’s not a silver bullet, and is made much stronger with clearer transparency over who the lobbyists are via an effective lobbyist register. But even on its own it gives the public some idea of the political and corporate interests at play. 

“Access in and of itself is a really important commodity,” transparency expert AJ Brown said. “There might be no bribery or corruption, but equity of access and influence between different people is vital.”

Ministerial diaries can also show whether ministers or MPs are listening to only one person or company in particular — and who they are not listening to. Depending on how quickly the data is published, this can be a hugely powerful tool in the lead-up to a big government decision. 

Making ministerial diaries public also goes some way to lifting the cloak on lobbyists — who they are and who they represent. 

States pave the way

In Queensland, ministers are required to proactively disclose portfolio related meetings and events every month. These can be accessed through the government’s website. 

In NSW the diaries of ministers are made public every three months under a law introduced under former premier Mike Baird in 2014.

The laws of both states are not perfect. Personal, electorate or party political meetings, and information “contrary to public interest” is not required to be declared. But they have proved to be a powerful tool in holding ministers to account.

In Queensland in 2020, they helped reveal that Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk’s former government strategy chief, Evan Moorhead, was working as a lobbyist while being paid by Labor to help run its campaign ahead of the October 31 state election.

Australia lagging

At a federal level, greater transparency over who ministers are listening to would also go some way to preventing corruption when it comes to big government contracts. 

“When you’ve got situations like where there are large government contracts involved, you would want to know when the minister for defence procurement was meeting with big defence contractors to be sure there were no secret discussions that were consistent with any kind of bribery or collusion or corruption,” Brown said.

A research paper by the Centre for Public Integrity (CPI) last month shows the regulation of lobbyists in Australia is falling short of international standards, including requirements in the UK and Canada. It also found it was falling behind the standards set by the Australian National Audit Office and the OECD. 

“MPs are paid to represent their electorates but in actual fact spend more time speaking with lobbyists than their constituents,” CPI director Geoffrey Watson SC said.

“The public has a right to know who is lobbying our members of parliament and federal government, and whose interests they represent.”