The Department of Parliamentary Services should lose its status of exemption from the Freedom of Information Act (FOI), according to former senator Rex Patrick, an FOI expert.
Patrick told The Mandarin that the department, snuggly nestled within Parliament House, needed to be subject to the same FOI legislation as many agencies are so that its decision is subject to the same degree of transparency.
He said the powerful parliamentary department should be required to respond to requests under transparency laws that relate to its administration functions, including but not limited to the management of “general expenditure, administration of the department, procurements, and projects”.
The parliamentary department is currently only held to account by the parliament’s estimates process, and senators frequently complain that the department is slow to deliver on projects and respond to answers.
A current controversy related to funding for an onsite doctor during sitting weeks at Parliament House has stretched out over more than a year.
This includes the long time it took for the parliamentary department to hand over a November 2022 feasibility study that looked at options for enhancing health and wellness services.
That feasibility study was done by Strategic Development Group. It provides an analysis of projected annual costs for an upgrade of the parliamentary health services that are available to politicians, their staff, and other people working across Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces.
The annual estimated running cost for all the initiatives included in the feasibility study was $1.8 million, with $361,000 of that being the onsite general practitioner to service parliament during sitting weeks.
Senate estimates is the only forum that can request such a report, and senators are forced to wait until answers are provided to the committee before they can interrogate the secretary and key management of the Department of Parliamentary Services, in detail.
Senators Jane Hume and Larissa Waters have regularly asked questions about the health and wellness recommendation in the Jenkins report since the completion of the feasibility study.
Subjecting the Parliamentary Services Department to the rigours of FOI, Patrick asserted to The Mandarin, would enhance its accountability where projects like these are concerned but there were other things the department needed to do better.
“The department needs to ensure it responds to the member’s questions on notice in accordance with `standing orders or directions from committees, and those answers should be detailed and fulsome,” Patrick said.
READ MORE:
Hardiman accuses information commissioner of FOI ‘spin’ and culture issues
