The major parties have united to increase secrecy around the running of Federal Parliament, with a new law set to prevent revelations about some perks enjoyed by politicians.

Three departments that oversee Parliament - with an annual budget of $170 million - will be given a blanket exemption from freedom-of-information laws.

The government claimed an ''anomaly'' had been found last year when Fairfax Media obtained information about former Speaker Peter Slipper's travel, catering and clothing purchases.

The new law has been rushed through the House of Representatives even though the results of an independent review on the issue is expected to be released soon, and the departments involved admit they do not need a blanket exemption.

Despite this week's collapse of the bipartisan deal on extra public funding for political parties, the Coalition backed the FOI law change, which both major parties say simply restores the previous understanding that parliamentary departments are exempt.

But lawyer and FOI expert Peter Timmins said the move flew in the face of openness and questioned why it was done when the review's findings were so close.

''These three agencies receive about $170 million in public money to assist in running the Parliament and provide services to members and senators,'' he said. ''Blanket exemptions are troubling.''

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/secrecy-law-veils-mp-perks-20130531-2nhi2.html#ixzz2UyEQMivb

praxidice
I am glad you raised this topic.

"The new law has been rushed through the HOR even though the results of an independent review on the issue is expected to be released soon, and the departments involved admit they do not need a blanket exemption."

It beggars belief that these 'interim' laws have been pushed through given the independent review hasn't even tabled their recommendations.

The only conclusions one might make is that either the results are already known and this is a prepatory step; or if the results are not known the parliamentary departments want a halt on any pesky FOI applications to prevent any getting in and missing the cut-off point before the secrecy laws are fully implemented.

It is all moot anyway. There is no valid reason why the parliamentary departments should be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

Why is it the only time in Parliament there is bipartisan support on anything is in self-interested proposals such as secrecy, ministerial salaries, entitlements and political donations?

The answer is obvious but will voters let the majors get away with it? The answer is yes they will.

Pelican - Why is it the only time in Parliament there is bipartisan support on anything is in self-interested proposals such as secrecy, ministerial salaries, entitlements and political donations?

Any some claim I'm overly critical of our elected officials.

As Senator Madigan said last week, ''This place is rotten to the core … I'd like to see it implode,'' / ''They wonder why people hate their bloody guts and we have a high informal vote.'' / ''I've run over better rabbits than these people.''

A very sad reflection on people given a position of trust

I figure that if these people are willing to go into politics, and take all the abuse they get from people in forums like this for example, then good luck to them.
Being a politician looks like a hard job to me. It needs to have some 'perks' or else who on earth would be stupid enough to do the job?

All politicians will be looking after number one of course.

Anyone who is really upset re them doing what they think is best for themselves should put up their hands for nomination to a political party job.

Suse
I have to disagree with you on this topic. While politicians are not all the same, there are some good ones in the mix, the job is not for people who seek perks or who wish to hide perks by exempting use of public revenue from the FOI Act.

The perks are already inherent in a good salary with secure retirement prospects of which most people are not afforded. The perk is the opportunity to do something good for the electorate.

I don't buy the idea that it is a hard job. It is a job made harder by the parties themselves. If politicians acted with greater integrity and openness there would not be the cynicism that is pervading our system. The rhetoric used in Parliament is also indicative of the rot in the system. Unfortunately it does sound cynical but there is great room for improvement and so far the two major parties are still not listening.

Suseonline - Anyone who is really upset re them doing what they think is best for themselves should put up their hands for nomination to a political party job.

Been there, done that & have the T-shirts to prove it

Unfortunately the reality of the present-day political circus is that one only gets to the preselection stage when the party heirarchy is 200% certain one will happily prostitute whatever principles one might have once had to the greater glory of said party. Basically to be a member of the major parties & even most of the minor parties, one has to be a totally self-serving grub, totally devoid of any redeeming features whatever. How do you think the red-headed witch & the RAbbott got where they are ??

Thankfully there are a few halfway decent people popping up, like Nick Xenephon, John Madigan, Big Clive etc. Hopefully bit by bit we'll see the decent ones retaining their integrity and edging out the crap.

praxidice,
Clive comes across as a bloke with integrity & I for one will show my support for him when the time comes. I lost a large portion of my respect for Abbott when he went along with the latest pay rise at a time when we all struggle like crap. Clive doesn't seem to need the money so I think that makes him a bloke whose focus won't be distracted by lurks & perks.
I just hope like crap that he doesn't surround himself with failed in other parties characters too much. It'll be interesting to see his policy on Law reform which is probably the most talked about in our community due to so much crime permitted under Labor.

Pelican, I can see where you are coming from, however I don't think the politicians are paid well enough, for the most part.

If they were, and these 'perks' you speak of are so great, then why aren't we getting a higher calibre of person wanting to be a politician ?
How often do we hear of politicians giving up the job to go into the private sector?

Maybe if the politicians were offered a similar pay as similar jobs in the private sector, then we would attract people that might not want or need to rort the system as much as they seem to do now?

As for Big CLive, I remain skeptical of his intentions also. He became rich by hard work or whatever, and who knows what changes he might make, given the opportunity, in order to feather his own nest?

Suseonline & individual

By and large, politicians have traditionally been seen as nothing more than self-serving grubs / bloodsucking parasites who are only there because they could never hold down a 'proper' job. Consider the number of failed lawyers / failed priests / union heavies. The vast majority of successful business folk wouldn't sully their good name by being associated with the major parties, or for that matter most of the smaller ones. The precious few with some business background who did enter the circus have had hidden agendas (remember the Undertaker), The reason we don't see politicians leaving to join the private sector is quite obviously because they are utterly incompetent, who in their right mind would employ, for instance, the dying duck ?? An inescapable feature of human nature is that 'power corrupts'. What we really need is a truly robust control mechanism established BEFORE giving anyone power.

I suggest that anyone intent on chucking rocks at Big Clive should go to the trouble of meeting the bloke in person. Personality wise he's best compared with Richard Branson. Many of the same key attributes apply, the same sense of adventure, the 'who gives a rats about money', and the same fired-up infectious enthusiasm for the task in hand. Unlike both the red-headed witch & the RAbbott, after shaking hands you don't feel the same compulsion to count your fingers to see if they are still all there. Despite being able to buy both the red-headed witch & the RAbbott fifty times over, Big Clive drives his own car everywhere he goes and doesn't consider he warrants a driver. All 39 or whatever is is candidates appointed to date are real world people, nary a lawyer, priest or union heavy in the lot.

Suseonline, "If they were, and these 'perks' you speak of are so great, then why aren't we getting a higher calibre of person wanting to be a politician?"

You forget the pre-selection practices. An easy example could be the Greens, whose preselection practices are secretive. Greens' policy forbids any public information relating to their nominations and the processes that turn up candidates like the feckless David Shoebridge in NSW or the highly contentious and random (to be polite) Lee Rhiannon (Brown).

The ACT Greens' recent grubby and spiteful tussle over preselection where Christine Milne attempted to parachute former GetUp! director Simon Sheikh in, is an example.

Suseonline: "How often do we hear of politicians giving up the job to go into the private sector?"

You mean like failed ex-Premier Anna Bligh ('I will serve my time in the Parliament if elected'. LOL), who was appointed to a Medibank Private board position by Federal Finance Minister Penny Wong. "Senator Wong’s spokeswoman said the agreed amount for Ms Bligh’s remuneration was confidential", but Anna would receive it on top of her existing super and benefits paid for by Queenslanders. It was reported that this was Anna's 'first' board position. More are expected presumably.

Or do you mean like the federal Labor Party's favoured advisors and politicians who are being lined up for plum jobs in the federal and State public agencies to reward themand keep them on ice?

Astounding that you believe that politicians are poorly paid when Julia Gillard voted herself bigger money than the US President and the UK Prime Minister. No mention of the much larger populations they govern.

Julia and her handbag hit squad have been quite concened while in office about furthering affirmative action to force more women onto the boards of private companies. Don't tell me there aren't enough appointments to public agencies to go around. Some would call that feathering their nests for the future.

then why aren't we getting a higher calibre of person wanting to be a politician ?
Suseonline,
Because the low calibre ones vastly outnumber integrity bearers. Why do you think they're never changing the public service head honchos ? They're the rails of the gravy train.

individual - Why do you think they're never changing the public service head honchos ? They're the rails of the gravy train.

It backfired badly with General Disaster. The clown thought he was smart with his attack on the public service but he neglected to get rid of all the ALP drones and now they are practicing voodoo on him :)

"then why aren't we getting a higher calibre of person wanting to be a politician?"
Indi, looks like that perennial loser, and former fish and chip shop owner Pauline Hanson will nominate again in NSW. I hope it's for the Senate, like we did in the NSW LC election in 2011 when Jeremy Buckingham defeated Hanson for the final spot. In a senate vote she would be up against Cate Faehrmann, and again a Hanson win would see the caliber drop another 10 points, then again if Cate wins the caliber jumps 10 points.

Suse
It is not just about whether politicians get paid enough but whether these details be exempt from FOI. All public salaries are a matter for public scrutiny. There seems to be a competition for these roles which indicates the salary levels are more than adequate.

Political salaries have risen more than cost of living-directly or via allowances. While people are arguing about 1-3% rises for workers the pollies generally get around 10%. How much is not enough. The PM's salary sits at approx $500,000 including allowances required to do her/his job. I think that is more than reasonable and allows the incumbent a very comfortable lifestyle and recompense for the long hours.

I don't believe the calibre of candidates would rise with a higher salary. These jobs are about public service. Same with nursing or teaching given the relatively lower salaries by comparison. I have dealt with politicians over many years and - there are good people (even)in the ALP and LNP but for many party politics and ambition sometimes gets in the way of purpose.

The LNP is too wedded to the big end of town and acquiescing to corporate pressures and the political donations don't aid impartiality in this respect. The ALP has lost it's grass roots focus and in the rush to neo-liberalism and lost sight of what is important. Pork barrelling is now policy, middle class and corporate welfare is growing, environment never wins over those with money and influence on government etc.

This fellow has a different view. It is not about electing new leaders of parties (that can happen over and over to no avail) but maybe about creating new parties: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/why-i-quit-the-alp-20130526-2n50x.html

Cynicism is not a good look and it is easy to fall down that well at times. I have seen some of this close up and feel strongly that we need new parties and Independents to bring democracy back to the ordinary person. Or the parties themselves re-invent themselves and shake-up the fraudsters like the Obeids and MacDonalds, the ministerial rorters. The party always knows who they are.

Yes I agree with you there Pelican. Maybe I was too quick to judge, but I get frustrated with the calibre of politicians we do have.

As for Big Clive, I wouldn't get too excited over this bloke with a 'great personality'.
Neither his money nor his personality will help him unless he looks at his obvious health problems

As an ex ALP member I can empathies with Andrew Macleod and his disillusionment with the Labor Party. My first political experience came with my opposition to the Vietnam War and the "radical" protest that ensured. Politically it was a clear cut choice between, "them" the conservatives and pro war Liberal Party led by Billy McMahon, and "us" who identified with the Labor Party and Gough Whitlam. As I entered the work force it was natural to join the union, by my early 20's I become very active in my left wing union and rather than join the radical Communist Party, I had elected to join the ALP. At that time I believed Labor was the party best suited to Australia and the party that could deliver. With the election of Whitlam in 1972 I thought it truly was "time" and was angered with the sacking of Labor in 1975. Justifying that anger with a belief of a conspiracy to deny the people what they deserved. Although I had great admiration for Gough, and still do, I cannot say I had the same for Bob Hawke who I believed was an opportunist and a self serving individual.
con't

con't
Hawke's rise to the pinnacle of political power in Australia confirmed my suspicion, that although he achieved a number of good things he pushed the party to the right. The lunge to the right did achieve short term success for the party and for Hawke in particular, at the same time it alienated many within the party. As the right tightened it undemocratic grip on the party, and replaced that grass roots democracy with imposed authoritarianism, with its internal deals, its imposition of candidates and control of party policy. I found myself with no alternative but to resign and walk away.
Some years later I joined The Greens, at first mainly to offer support to a party I seen as having the potential to offer Australia an alternative. It did not take long to realize The Greens were much more than merely a one issue environmental party, but rather a broad based grass roots democratic party which was in tune with my thinking, and had committed people who could offer a real alternative to both Labor and Liberal

pelican - While people are arguing about 1-3% rises for workers the pollies generally get around 10%.

The lunatics in charge of the Queensland asylum have decided they deserve a 33% salary increase, mind you the state is so broke thanks to previous incompetent GoAnna the Blight that no public servants can get even 2% increase

suseonline - Neither his money nor his personality will help him unless he looks at his obvious health problems

I'd warrant Big Clive is a lot fitter than you. For what its worth he lost a LOT of weight a few years back and has religiously followed a quite stringent lifestyle program since then. I'm in far better condition than 90% of people my age however it would be a real challenge to do even half of what he achieves in a day.

Paul 1405 - The Greens were much more than merely a one issue environmental party, but rather a broad based grass roots democratic party which was in tune with my thinking, and had committed people who could offer a real alternative to both Labor and Liberal

From my perspective the Greens did have potential however the Queensland mob did a few things that put them right off the radar in Queensland. I had quite a bit of interaction with a few members in connection with a local 'development' proposal (actually it was more like rape & pillage) just before the 2009 state election. Mind you they had a few totally hairbrained ideas that never should have left the drawing board. The very day after the election, the local branch went AWOL and even the national tribe couldn't contact anyone. The area I now live has a number of what could only be described as fanatically rabid tree-huggers (with good reason) and consequently one would expect a switched-on Greens connection. Problem is that the Queensland Party (on the rare occasions it comes out of hibernation) is really only interested in getting someone in to gubmunt and they figure thats easier done in Brisbane where there are plenty of educated idiot pretend greenies who crap on about unrelated issues (homosexual rights and so on), not the 'proper' ones whose interest is flora & fauna.