October 2022 Lecture Transcript

7th Chief Minister’s Governance Lecture

For the benefit of current and future generations: archives, governance and integrity

19 October 2022

Deborah Stokes

I acknowledge the Ngunnawal people, the Traditional Owners of the land on which we meet, and I pay my respects to Elders past and present.

I thank Violet Sheridan for her warm welcome.

I wish to acknowledge:

I also acknowledge Danielle Wickman, Director of Territory Records, and express my thanks for her valuable assistance.

It is a great pleasure to be with you today for the Governance Lecture.

I am passionate about governance and thus was delighted to have this opportunity to talk about topics close to my heart.

My interest in governance began during my first posting in the mid-1980s to Burma, now known as Myanmar.  I saw how the military elites benefited from corruption and weak governance, undermining development and poverty reduction.

In the 1990s, I led the policy work for the Australian aid program on good governance as an essential foundation for development.

Many years later, during my posting to PNG as High Commissioner in the mid-2010s, efforts to help PNG strengthen its governance were a major focus of our work through for example support for national institutions in law and justice, finance and audit.

Today, I will talk to you about the winding road that eventually led to the creation of the ACT Records Act and Territory Records Office, and identify lessons from this experience. Secondly, I will talk about the importance of reforms to strengthen accountable government at the national level in Australia. Finally, I will offer a few personal reflections on the value of records and archives in international affairs.
Why did it take 13 years after self-government to adopt the Territory Records Act?

Turning to the history of the Territory Records Act, two dates stand out.  The ACT achieved self-government in 1989 and yet the Territory Records Act was not adopted until 2002. This means that for 13 years there was no common approach within ACT Government departments and authorities to records management, archiving and public access. Why did it take 13 years for the ACT to establish an appropriate records function?

Documents publicly available in the Territory Records Office show that in the period leading to self-government there was intense debate among officials in the Federal Government about what to do about records, especially Commonwealth records relating to ACT matters. In a revealing internal working paper in October 1988, Francis Ross working in the then Department of Arts, Sports, Environment, Tourism and Territories (known by its acronym DASETT), identified that the lack of relevant legislation relating to records management by the new government made comprehensive preparations difficult. Furthermore, he noted that the Australian Archives had advised ‘that these matters were left unattended to in the case of self-government for Northern Territory and Papua New Guinea and this created much extra labour, expense and confusion for all parties.’  Ross urged that these mistakes not be repeated.

After much to-ing and fro-ing between officials from the Australian Archives, Attorney-General’s Department, and DASETT about the best way forward, it was decided that records created by the new ACT Government would be deemed Commonwealth records until the ACT had its own laws and provisions, and files would be transferred to the ACT as determined by DASETT.  An MOU between the Australian Archives and the ACT administration was later signed.

This approach was largely a pragmatic one, and it fell short of what the Australian Archives had been advocating at the time which was a more comprehensive approach to past and future records including a legislative foundation in the ACT. Thus, an opportunity was missed at the time of self-government to put more comprehensive systems in place. But why did it take 13 more years for proper records legislation to be established in the ACT? The history of self-government perhaps provides several clues. There was never an appetite for self-government among the citizens of the ACT and many remained reluctant to accept self-government and all that that entailed. In addition, at the time of self-government, the ACT was encumbered with a complicated electoral system known as the modified d’Hondt system. This made majority government difficult to achieve, leading to much instability in the early years of self-government.  Fortunately, the system was changed to the Hare-Clark system in 1995, after two elections. Major budget constraints were another feature of self-government.  To quote John Overall from his history of the national capital, ‘As Canberra residents had long feared, the arrival of self-government brought with it severe funding cuts ….Taxes were raised, dozens of local schools were shut.’

Against this background, it seems that the creation of a proper system for record-keeping was simply not a priority for governments struggling for legitimacy and their hold on power, as well as facing budgetary stresses. But given the evident importance of records and archives to accountable government, the slowness to act in the ACT certainly must also reflect a deficiency in the initial vision of ACT self-government and its democracy.

Professor John Halligan, in delivering the ACT Governance Lecture in 2019 commented that the ACT had a ‘stunted system of governance’ due primarily to conditions and constraints imposed by the Federal Government.  These words certainly ring true in relation to records management. But successive ACT governments must also share responsibility for inaction.

Momentum for reform eventually began to grow in the late 1990s. Gary Humphries, a Minister in the Carnell Liberal Government, made an election commitment in 1998 to undertake an inquiry into the feasibility of establishing an archives for the ACT. At about the same time, Independent MP Michael Moore said he would introduce a private members bill to establish an archives act including provisions for the release of cabinet papers after 10 years.

In 1998 the ACT Archives Project began work under the Department of Urban Services.  The Project Officer, David Wardle, prepared a comprehensive “Issues and Options Paper” in 1999 for community consultation. This paper presented a compelling case for change, outlining many of the serious shortcomings in ACT record keeping at that time.  Here are just a few of the issues brought to light in the paper:

Strong support for reform came from the Australian Society of Archivists and the former Records Management Association of Australasia (now Records and Information Management Practitioners Alliance).  They advocated the central role of government archives in supporting accountable government. Another important community group was the Journey of Healing Network which promoted the need to address indigenous issues in the management of government records in the ACT.

The case for reform was further strengthened by findings of major deficiencies in record-keeping:

But it was not until June 2001 that legislation was introduced into the ACT Legislative Assembly by the then Liberal government. Unfortunately, the legislation was not passed before the end of the Government's term and it lapsed.

Building on the preparations undertaken under the previous government by the ACT Archives Project led by David Wardle, the new Labor-led Stanhope Government introduced the legislation in April 2002 and passed it in June of the same year. The legislation as adopted had one key addition compared with the version drafted under the previous government.  This was the inclusion of the Territory Records Advisory Council which is an important vehicle for stakeholder engagement and a common feature of archives offices in other states. In introducing the legislation, Bill Wood, Minister for Urban Services, said the bill ‘is designed to give confidence to our community that government records will be created, managed and accessible.  This is a key component for open and accountable government.’

Thank goodness this was finally achieved.  It was a long and windy road.

What wider conclusions can be drawn from this history?   It shows how easy it can be for shortcomings in accountable government to be neglected, even in a democratic society such as Australia’s, and it also shows how long it can take to achieve reform.  It also demonstrates that we should always be guided by a wider vision of our democracy and accountable government. Reforms needed to strengthen accountable government at the national level. We see at the national level many shortcomings in accountable government.

According to Transparency International’s global Corruption Perceptions Index, Australia’s standing has declined.  In 2012, Australia was ranked as the 7th least-corrupt country in the world. Ten years later, our rank had fallen 11 places to 18th in the world.  Countless public opinion surveys have also shown that the Australian public’s trust in government has been in decline. Fortunately, we have seen significant momentum build in Australia in support of greater integrity in our public governance.  Most notably, integrity was a major focus in the recent Federal election including with many of the newly elected members of Parliament and senators standing on platforms promoting integrity.

Responding to this momentum, the Albanese Government introduced into Parliament in September legislation for a national anti-corruption commission. Transparency International first called for a federal integrity commission in 2004. This legislation is very welcome and represents the biggest integrity reform proposal in government at the federal level for around 40 years.

Features of the bill which are particularly positive include:

A major shortcoming relates to inadequate whistle-blower protections including institutional machinery to enforce these. There are also concerns that the provisions for public hearings are too restrictive and the approach set out in the current bill will invite legal disputation. It will also be important to ensure that funding for the commission is sufficient and arrangements are in place to ensure its full independence. The Joint Standing Committee is now considering the bill in detail and I hope that as a result of this process an even more robust bill will emerge with as much parliamentary support as possible. But such a commission, while essential and a momentous development, will not be sufficient to restore Australia’s integrity standing and rebuild public trust in government.

We need to see action in a number of other areas.  These include:

We also want to see reforms to strengthen Australia’s anti-money laundering, beneficial ownership and foreign bribery laws to meet international best practice. Australia is lagging behind many developed economies in not requiring accountants, real estate agents, and lawyers to report suspicious transactions. These sectors are well-known enablers for money laundering and corruption, including the flow of dirty money from foreign crooks and kleptocrats. We are also lagging behind other countries in not having a public register of who ultimately owns and benefits from our companies. So there is a lot of work still to do to restore Australia’s integrity standing. Importantly, all of these efforts should be guided by a wider vision for integrity and accountable government accompanied by a comprehensive plan to make Australia one of the most robust democracies in the world. Australians like to aim high in sport – we should also aim high in integrity and accountable government.

I will now provide a few personal reflections on the value of records and archives in international affairs.

In the course of my career, I have had the opportunity to observe the capabilities of various diplomatic services as well as international organisations. In my experience, where organisations and their people are backed up by capable record-keeping and archives they have a comparative advantage in pursuing their goals. This is probably a truism for this particular audience.

I wish to reflect on two very different experiences with records and archives.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade regularly publishes historical documents highlighting key moments in Australia’s history of international engagement.  Some of the publications contain the full texts of memos, cabinet submissions, and diplomatic cables while others are monographs on a thematic basis summarising and analysing the contents of original documents. Foreign ministries in other countries have similar practices.  Indeed, the French claim their diplomatic archives began in 1680.

DFAT’s historical documents make for fascinating reading as they say much about Australia, its values and the functioning or otherwise of government processes. The historical documents which have had the most impact for me have been DFAT’s historical documents on Australian engagement with Papua New Guinea as the colonial power for some 70 years. These records were invaluable preparation for my posting there. Over the course of my career, I had heard it said countless times that Independence in 1975 had come too early for PNG and that more time should have been taken to build local capacities. But on reading the historical documents it was very clear that the Australian Government had little room for manoeuvre on timing. The international tide in favour of decolonisation was strong and Australia could not stand in its way. It is also the case that PNG political demands for independence were growing. Moreover, a continuing colonial role for Australia was at odds with the vision Whitlam had for Australia’s place in the world after his government was elected in 1972.

But could Australia have done more to help build PNG capabilities prior to Independence.  In the 1950s Australia had a strong policy of resisting UN scrutiny and any UN-imposed deadlines for Independence. Only when Canberra realised, belatedly it seems, that Independence was inevitable and fast approaching that it put serious efforts into building institutions and capacities in the 1960s. This prompts the question: if Australia had had a less negative and defensive attitude in relation to the UN and its decolonisation role in the 1950s, would we have done more to build PNG capacities?
We will never know the answer to this. But we do know that PNG gained independence in a peaceful, amicable and smooth handover of power, and Australia and PNG have remained close partners.  This contrasts with the painful and often bloody experiences of many other newly independent states. We can be very thankful for the peaceful result in PNG.  And now, our role is to continue to be as helpful a neighbour as possible by continuing to support PNG and its people strengthen their capacities and institutions.

The second personal reflection is of a very different nature and concerns the indispensable role of records in nuclear non-proliferation especially the role of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also known as the nuclear watch dog. This is topical in the context of international concerns about the safety and security of nuclear power plants in Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression and in relation to the AUKUS arrangement and Australia’s planned acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines.

As Australia’s Ambassador in Vienna in the mid 2000s, I was on the Board of the IAEA and saw first-hand its vital contribution to international security, underpinned by strong record-keeping capabilities. International governance around nuclear matters comprises multiple international and bilateral treaties and several international organisations. One of the most important of these organisations is the IAEA whose role is to support the safe use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. It does this through the close scrutiny of the nuclear activities of IAEA members, primarily through their compliance with safeguards agreements member states sign with the IAEA. These agreements are at their core about ensuring nuclear material is not ‘diverted’ from peaceful uses.  In other words, the IAEA holds states accountable for the peaceful nature of their nuclear activities.

The IAEA’s role in promoting nuclear non-proliferation earned it the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005. In the specific context of Ukraine, which has a large civilian nuclear power industry, the IAEA is playing an important role, as security conditions permit, in ascertaining on an ongoing basis that there is no diversion of nuclear material from Ukraine’s nuclear facilities impacted by Russian aggression.  It is playing an equally important role in monitoring nuclear safety.

Turning to the path-breaking AUKUS agreement and the planned nuclear submarines for Australia, this presents a very different set of questions for how IAEA nuclear safeguards will apply and how record-keeping will be done. Australia, UK and US are all members of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) but UK and US as nuclear weapon states under that treaty have the ability to circumscribe the scope of IAEA safeguards in their countries due to their special status in the NPT. This special status also applies to the other official nuclear weapon states of France, China and Russia. Australia is a non-nuclear weapon state under that treaty. Notably, there is no precedent of a non-nuclear weapon state having nuclear-powered submarines.  This means there is no experience with applying IAEA safeguards and record-keeping in such situations.

Australian submarines will be using the nuclear technology and nuclear material provided through cooperation with the US and the UK. Australia has reiterated its commitment to not acquire nuclear weapons and to supporting the highest possible non-proliferation standards. The only other non-nuclear-weapon state publicly indicating that it is pursuing nuclear powered submarines is Brazil, reportedly using its own nuclear technology and nuclear material.

The IAEA Director General stated last month that his Agency will continue consultations with Australia on a detailed verification approach to enable the Agency to confirm the non-diversion of nuclear material from nuclear-powered submarines. There will be much international scrutiny of the IAEA’s role and the conclusions it will reach with respect to Australia’s planned acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines, especially how it will ensure the integrity of international non-proliferation standards. These processes will engage high-level diplomatic, legal, and technical expertise on the part of the IAEA, AUKUS countries, Brazil as well as a wide range of other countries.

The stakes are high and whatever the outcome in the IAEA, history will be made and you can be sure that record-keeping will be at the centre.
In closing, I wish to thank our hosts, the ACT Chief Minister and the Territory Records Office.  I also thank the audience for their kind attention. I encourage all of you to aim high for integrity and good governance.

References:

Thirty years of self-government in the ACT: Chief Minister’s Governance Lecture for 2019, John Halligan
Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra
Canberra Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, A personal Memoir, John Overall, 1995

2021 Corruption Perceptions Index, Transparency International,

Australia’s National Integrity System, A Blueprint for Action, 2020,
Transparency International Australia

Australia and the United Nations, Chapter 4 on Decolonisation, David Lee, DFAT 2012

IAEA safeguards in relation to AUKUS, Report by the IAEA Director General, 9 September 2022