“Transparency is a vital tool for political accountability. We don’t have it in our local government. At the federal level, the fight for transparency is alive and well, though Albo’s intent to nobble the basics of freedom of information is clear. But there is more, as came to light this week,” writes columnist HUGH SELBY.

I was standing this past week at the midpoint of a two-lane concrete and steel bridge that crosses a deep ravine full of autumn colours – yellows, light and dark green tints, and bright orange – the sunlight capturing on the leaves some beads of water after rain. 

No vehicles used the bridge, though it was built to take heavy traffic.

It is in the middle of a mountainous wilderness, forgotten by the pork-barrellers who allocated the funds for its construction, but admired and appreciated by autumn and spring hikers several generations later.

That’s the irony of political decisions anywhere that are made for short-term, selfish reasons: the legacy and the legatees may be unknown, unimaginable.

The same cannot be said about the expensive legacy of the irresponsible spending by Andy’s gang on the red snake which, like a tapeworm, drains its host.

To be fair it was the price that the environmental glow worms demanded for Andy to retain power. Those worms have since lost their brightness; however, as will be seen, they shone briefly mid-year.

Especially infuriating is that Andy refuses to release the financials that would allow an informed decision about the best way forward.

It is only by examining those documents that we can all see how much this folly is going to cost us and our descendants, money that could, and should, have been spent on other more pressing necessities such as health, education and housing, not to forget a public transport system more appropriate for Canberra conditions.

Why fighting for transparency is necessary

Transparency is a vital tool for political accountability. We don’t have it in our local government. Andy’s gang can usually do what it likes, when it likes, as it likes.

At the federal level, the fight for transparency is alive and well, though Albo is doing his best to learn from Andy about how to keep everyone in the dark.

Albo’s intent to nobble the basics of freedom of information is clear. But there is more, as came to light this week.

Appointing party loyalists to well paid, publicly funded positions is a rort much favoured by the major political parties. For the most part they get away with it. What this means is that merit is cast aside in favour of second best or worse candidates. 

Occasionally their best-laid plans come unstuck, as happened in the ill-fated attempt by the then NSW Liberal government to appoint former deputy premier John Barilaro to the half million dollar NSW trade commissioner post in New York. 

A merit-based selection process had previously identified a senior public servant for the role. She was told she had the job and then that appointment was rescinded. Much too messy.

A much more expensive, and extensive, scam on the public was the Morrison government’s use of the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal as a place to reward loyalists with plum jobs that required skill sets beyond their abilities.

The incoming Albanese government abolished it and set up a new tribunal with fresh appointments. This is the Administrative Review Tribunal. Merit-based appointments to that body are back in vogue, at least for now.

But what about elsewhere, what of appointments to the myriad of publicly funded bodies? 

In mid 2022 the Grattan Institute, an independent policy research centre, released a report on the extent of ‘jobs for political mates’. More than one in five appointments ignored merit.

Especially galling was that by the end of the Morrison era half of the board of the Productivity Commission were political appointees. 

The Grattan Institute proposed a Public Appointments Commissioner to oversight and vet these appointments. What optimism. What naivete. Pigs will fly before that happens. 

Report suppressed for two years

In 2023, the first Albanese government received a report about appointments to public sector boards. It was written by Lynelle Briggs, former Public Service Commissioner, and recently appointed to inquire into some matters of governance at the ANU.

For two years this report has been suppressed. Now why would that be? Certainly not a quality issue. Much more likely is that its recommendations will fetter long-sanctioned corruption. That will not appeal.

And that is what explains the government’s anger this week when the cross bench in the Senate employed the rules of that place to bring the non- publication to a head.

Bravo to our David Pocock. Thumbs down to our Katy who opposes transparency.

Which takes us back to our local assembly. Mid-year, Andy was obliged to release information about the costs of the tapeworm saga, but that was after he fought it to the end.

As in the Senate, it was some ingenious work by the cross bench, including the glow worms, but led by the Libs, that forced the issue.

See Jon Stanhope and Khalid Ahmed’s account of the process here.

Even that win was partial at best. That which should be transparent is still opaque.

As Jon and Khalid point out: “There has been no disclosure of the interest costs on the borrowings for Stage 1… and whether they were less, or more, or the same as the rate at which the government with its AAA credit rating could have borrowed.

“There has, so far as we are aware, been no post-implementation assessment of costs and benefits or the extent to which they have been incurred and realised, respectively.”

I wonder whether in 50 years people will walk the disused tracks of Andy and Shane’s light rail and muse about the folly of it. I do hope they can enjoy the view.

Former barrister Hugh Selby is a CityNews columnist, principally focused on legal affairs.