By Andrew Klein 

( Chinese translation included for interest and general communication) 

This article examines a developing crisis in Australian public integrity: the systematic use of encrypted and unminuted communications between lobbyists and the highest levels of government to evade transparency laws. Drawing on recent investigative reporting and parliamentary analysis, it argues that this practice, occurring alongside legislative efforts to weaken the Freedom of Information (FOI) framework and a failure to implement robust anti-corruption measures, represents a calculated retreat from ethical transparency. This creates a “dark space” in policymaking, fundamentally at odds with the stated mission of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) and the basic democratic contract of public trust. The article concludes that this constitutes a form of institutionalised obscurity that protects political interests at the expense of democratic accountability.

Introduction: The Promise and the Practice

The election of the Albanese government was heralded with a promise to restore trust and integrity after a decade of scandals. The establishment of the NACC was its cornerstone. However, a parallel track of conduct suggests a different priority: the management of political risk through the control of information. This article synthesises evidence revealing a pattern where commitments to transparency are actively undermined by operational secrecy, creating a profound dissonance between public rhetoric and private practice.

1. The Architecture of Evasion: “Going Non-Traceable”

At the heart of this issue is a reported,routine practice within the Prime Minister’s office. Lobbyists and stakeholders are advised to use encrypted messaging applications (such as Signal) and direct phone calls for substantive policy discussions, explicitly to avoid creating a discoverable record under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). This guidance creates a two-tiered communication system: a formal, sanitised record for public consumption, and a shadow, substantive dialogue where real influence and negotiation occur. The justification—protecting “fluid thoughts”—is a stark departure from the principle that the formation of public policy should be a matter of public interest, not private conjecture.

2. Weakening the Scaffolding: Legislative and Systemic Failures

This operational evasion is not occurring in a vacuum. It is reinforced by systemic and legislative actions that degrade the infrastructure of transparency:

· The FOI Amendment Bill: The government is pursuing amendments that experts from the Australian Law Council and the Grattan Institute describe as “the most significant retrenchment” of transparency in decades. Key changes include a strict 40-hour processing cap—a logistical impossibility for complex requests—and the introduction of new, subjective grounds for refusal. This legally enshrines the difficulty of access.

· Chronic Record-Keeping Failure: A 2023 National Archives of Australia report found systemic failure across the Commonwealth in managing digital records. In 90% of recent audits, agencies received negative comments. Only one agency had a clear policy on capturing ministerial and departmental messaging for the official record. This is not negligence; it is a pervasive institutional disregard for the archival compact.

· Rejecting Anti-Cronyism Reforms: The government sat for two years on a review into “jobs for mates” in public appointments. When released, it rejected core recommendations to depoliticise the process, such as banning last-minute appointments before elections. This demonstrates a preference for preserving patronage networks over implementing substantive integrity reform.

3. The NACC in the Dark: An Integrity Watchdog Without a Trail

The establishment of the NACC was meant to be a circuit-breaker. However, its efficacy is premised on the existence of evidence—a paper trail, a digital record, a minute of a meeting. The practices detailed above are designed to eliminate that trail. The NACC’s own definition of “serious or systemic corrupt conduct” includes breaches of public trust and any conduct perverting the impartial exercise of official functions. Influencing policy through hidden channels, deliberately shielded from public and archival scrutiny, aligns precisely with this definition. The NACC’s first major survey, finding 15% of public officials were aware of corrupt conduct in their area, hints at the scale of the challenge it faces in a culture of obscurity.

4. Analysis: The “Trust Gap” and the Corruption of Process

The outcome is a critical “trust gap.” The public is asked to trust in institutions that are architecturally designed to avoid being held to account. This goes beyond traditional corruption (bribes for favours). It represents a corruption of process, where the very mechanisms for democratic oversight—FOI, archives, parliamentary scrutiny—are rendered inert. The government controls not only policy but the narrative of how that policy was formed, presenting a fait accompli to the public while hiding the machinery of influence. This creates a space where the lines between lobbying, policy development, and undisclosed conflicts of interest dangerously blur.

Conclusion: Gestures Versus Substance in the Democratic Contract

Australia is at an integrity crossroads. It has the gesture—the NACC—but is dismantling the substance required for that gesture to be meaningful. A democracy cannot function on a “need-to-know” basis where the government decides the public does not need to know how it is governed. The use of encrypted lobbying and the erosion of record-keeping are not administrative quirks; they are political strategies that sacrifice long-term public trust for short-term political convenience. Rebuilding trust requires not just new institutions, but a radical recommitment to transparency as the default, not the exception. Until the “dark space” of policymaking is illuminated, the promise of integrity will remain, like the lost records themselves, unfulfilled.

References

· Reported guidance to lobbyists on encrypted communications (Source: The Australian, 2024).

· Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2024 (Cth) and associated critiques from the Law Council of Australia.

· National Archives of Australia, Digital Continuity 2020 Policy: Audit Report (2023).

· Review of the Public Interest and Governance of Government Appointments (2023) and government response.

· National Anti-Corruption Commission, Framework for Identifying Corrupt Conduct and initial survey data (2024).

中文版本

影子内阁：加密游说与记录保存的侵蚀如何破坏澳大利亚民主

摘要

本文探讨澳大利亚公共廉政体系中出现的一个发展中的危机：游说者与政府最高层为规避透明法律而系统性地使用加密及无记录的通讯方式。结合最近的调查报道与议会分析，本文认为，这种在与立法弱化《信息自由法》框架及未能实施有力反腐措施同时发生的做法，代表着一种从道德透明度的战略性退却。这在决策过程中创造了一个“黑暗空间”，与国家反贪污委员会（NACC）的既定使命及公众信任这一基本民主契约根本对立。文章结论认为，这构成了一种制度化的模糊性，以牺牲民主问责为代价保护政治利益。

引言：承诺与实践

阿尔巴尼斯政府的当选，曾伴随着在十年丑闻后重建信任与廉政的承诺。设立NACC是其基石。然而，一系列平行行为却显示出不同的优先事项：通过控制信息来管理政治风险。本文综合的证据揭示了一种模式，即对透明的承诺被操作上的保密性积极破坏，在公开言论与私下实践之间制造了深刻的矛盾。

1. 规避的架构：“走向无痕”

此问题的核心是总理办公室内一种据称例行的做法。游说者和利益相关者被建议使用加密通讯应用程序（如Signal）和直接电话进行实质性的政策讨论，明确旨在避免产生根据《1982年联邦信息自由法》可被发现的记录。这种指导创造了一个双层的沟通系统：一套正式的、净化过的记录供公众监督，以及一个隐秘的、实质性的对话，真实的影响和谈判在此发生。其理由——保护“流动的想法”——明显背离了公共政策的形成应是公共利益之事而非私人臆想的原则。

2. 削弱支撑：立法与系统性失败

这种操作上的规避并非在真空中发生。它得到了破坏透明基础设施的系统性和立法行动的强化：

· 《信息自由法修正案》： 政府正在推动的修正案，被澳大利亚法律委员会和格拉坦研究所的专家称为数十年来“最严重的”透明度倒退。关键变化包括严格的40小时处理时限（对于复杂请求在逻辑上不可能完成）以及引入新的、主观的拒绝理由。这在法律上巩固了获取信息的难度。

· 长期的记录保存失败： 澳大利亚国家档案馆2023年的一份报告发现，联邦各部委在管理数字记录方面存在系统性失败。在最近的审计中，90%的机构收到负面评价。仅有一个机构拥有关于为官方记录保存部长及部门信息的明确政策。这并非疏忽，而是一种普遍的制度性漠视，无视档案保存的社会契约。

· 拒绝反任人唯亲改革： 政府将一份关于公职任命中“任人唯亲”的审核报告搁置了两年。公布后，又拒绝了其去政治化进程的核心建议，例如禁止选举前的最后一刻任命。这表明其倾向于保留庇护网络，而非实施实质性的廉政改革。

3. 黑暗中的NACC：没有踪迹的廉政监督者

NACC的成立本应是一个转折点。然而，其效力的前提是证据的存在——纸质记录、数字痕迹、会议纪要。上述做法旨在消除这些踪迹。NACC自身对“严重或系统性腐败行为”的定义包括破坏公众信任以及任何妨碍公务公正执行的行为。通过隐蔽渠道影响政策，并有意避开公众和档案审查，恰恰符合这一定义。NACC首次大型调查发现15%的公职人员知晓其所在领域的腐败行为，这暗示了在一个崇尚模糊的文化中，NACC所面临挑战的规模。

4. 分析：“信任鸿沟”与程序腐败

其结果是一个关键的“信任鸿沟”。公众被要求信任那些在架构设计上就是为了避免被问责的机构。这超越了传统腐败（贿赂换取好处）。它代表了一种程序腐败，即使民主监督的机制——信息自由、档案保存、议会审查——变得无效。政府不仅控制政策，还控制该政策如何形成的叙事，在向公众呈现既成事实的同时，隐藏了影响的运作机制。这创造了一个空间，使得游说、政策制定和未公开的利益冲突之间的界限危险地模糊。

结论：民主契约中的姿态与实质

澳大利亚正处于廉政的十字路口。它拥有了姿态——NACC——却在瓦解使该姿态具有意义所需的实质。民主不能建立在一种“需知”原则上，由政府决定公众无需知晓其如何被统治。使用加密游说和侵蚀记录保存并非行政上的怪癖；它们是牺牲长期公众信任以换取短期政治便利的政治策略。重建信任不仅需要新机构，更需要从根本上重新承诺将透明作为默认原则，而非例外。在决策的“黑暗空间”被照亮之前，廉政的承诺将如那些丢失的记录一样，无法兑现。

参考文献

· 关于引导游说者使用加密通讯的报道（来源：《澳大利亚人报》，2024年）。

· 《2024年信息自由法修正案》（联邦）及来自澳大利亚法律委员会的批评。

· 澳大利亚国家档案馆，《2020数字连续性政策：审计报告》（2023年）。

· 《政府任命的公共利益与治理审查》（2023年）及政府回应。

· 国家反贪污委员会，《识别腐败行为框架》及初步调查数据（2024年）。

By Andrew Klein 

( Chinese translation included for interest and general communication) 

This article examines a developing crisis in Australian public integrity: the systematic use of encrypted and unminuted communications between lobbyists and the highest levels of government to evade transparency laws. Drawing on recent investigative reporting and parliamentary analysis, it argues that this practice, occurring alongside legislative efforts to weaken the Freedom of Information (FOI) framework and a failure to implement robust anti-corruption measures, represents a calculated retreat from ethical transparency. This creates a “dark space” in policymaking, fundamentally at odds with the stated mission of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) and the basic democratic contract of public trust. The article concludes that this constitutes a form of institutionalised obscurity that protects political interests at the expense of democratic accountability.

Introduction: The Promise and the Practice

The election of the Albanese government was heralded with a promise to restore trust and integrity after a decade of scandals. The establishment of the NACC was its cornerstone. However, a parallel track of conduct suggests a different priority: the management of political risk through the control of information. This article synthesises evidence revealing a pattern where commitments to transparency are actively undermined by operational secrecy, creating a profound dissonance between public rhetoric and private practice.

1. The Architecture of Evasion: “Going Non-Traceable”

At the heart of this issue is a reported,routine practice within the Prime Minister’s office. Lobbyists and stakeholders are advised to use encrypted messaging applications (such as Signal) and direct phone calls for substantive policy discussions, explicitly to avoid creating a discoverable record under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). This guidance creates a two-tiered communication system: a formal, sanitised record for public consumption, and a shadow, substantive dialogue where real influence and negotiation occur. The justification—protecting “fluid thoughts”—is a stark departure from the principle that the formation of public policy should be a matter of public interest, not private conjecture.

2. Weakening the Scaffolding: Legislative and Systemic Failures

This operational evasion is not occurring in a vacuum. It is reinforced by systemic and legislative actions that degrade the infrastructure of transparency:

· The FOI Amendment Bill: The government is pursuing amendments that experts from the Australian Law Council and the Grattan Institute describe as “the most significant retrenchment” of transparency in decades. Key changes include a strict 40-hour processing cap—a logistical impossibility for complex requests—and the introduction of new, subjective grounds for refusal. This legally enshrines the difficulty of access.

· Chronic Record-Keeping Failure: A 2023 National Archives of Australia report found systemic failure across the Commonwealth in managing digital records. In 90% of recent audits, agencies received negative comments. Only one agency had a clear policy on capturing ministerial and departmental messaging for the official record. This is not negligence; it is a pervasive institutional disregard for the archival compact.

· Rejecting Anti-Cronyism Reforms: The government sat for two years on a review into “jobs for mates” in public appointments. When released, it rejected core recommendations to depoliticise the process, such as banning last-minute appointments before elections. This demonstrates a preference for preserving patronage networks over implementing substantive integrity reform.

3. The NACC in the Dark: An Integrity Watchdog Without a Trail

The establishment of the NACC was meant to be a circuit-breaker. However, its efficacy is premised on the existence of evidence—a paper trail, a digital record, a minute of a meeting. The practices detailed above are designed to eliminate that trail. The NACC’s own definition of “serious or systemic corrupt conduct” includes breaches of public trust and any conduct perverting the impartial exercise of official functions. Influencing policy through hidden channels, deliberately shielded from public and archival scrutiny, aligns precisely with this definition. The NACC’s first major survey, finding 15% of public officials were aware of corrupt conduct in their area, hints at the scale of the challenge it faces in a culture of obscurity.

4. Analysis: The “Trust Gap” and the Corruption of Process

The outcome is a critical “trust gap.” The public is asked to trust in institutions that are architecturally designed to avoid being held to account. This goes beyond traditional corruption (bribes for favours). It represents a corruption of process, where the very mechanisms for democratic oversight—FOI, archives, parliamentary scrutiny—are rendered inert. The government controls not only policy but the narrative of how that policy was formed, presenting a fait accompli to the public while hiding the machinery of influence. This creates a space where the lines between lobbying, policy development, and undisclosed conflicts of interest dangerously blur.

Conclusion: Gestures Versus Substance in the Democratic Contract

Australia is at an integrity crossroads. It has the gesture—the NACC—but is dismantling the substance required for that gesture to be meaningful. A democracy cannot function on a “need-to-know” basis where the government decides the public does not need to know how it is governed. The use of encrypted lobbying and the erosion of record-keeping are not administrative quirks; they are political strategies that sacrifice long-term public trust for short-term political convenience. Rebuilding trust requires not just new institutions, but a radical recommitment to transparency as the default, not the exception. Until the “dark space” of policymaking is illuminated, the promise of integrity will remain, like the lost records themselves, unfulfilled.

References

· Reported guidance to lobbyists on encrypted communications (Source: The Australian, 2024).

· Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2024 (Cth) and associated critiques from the Law Council of Australia.

· National Archives of Australia, Digital Continuity 2020 Policy: Audit Report (2023).

· Review of the Public Interest and Governance of Government Appointments (2023) and government response.

· National Anti-Corruption Commission, Framework for Identifying Corrupt Conduct and initial survey data (2024).

中文版本

影子内阁：加密游说与记录保存的侵蚀如何破坏澳大利亚民主

摘要

本文探讨澳大利亚公共廉政体系中出现的一个发展中的危机：游说者与政府最高层为规避透明法律而系统性地使用加密及无记录的通讯方式。结合最近的调查报道与议会分析，本文认为，这种在与立法弱化《信息自由法》框架及未能实施有力反腐措施同时发生的做法，代表着一种从道德透明度的战略性退却。这在决策过程中创造了一个“黑暗空间”，与国家反贪污委员会（NACC）的既定使命及公众信任这一基本民主契约根本对立。文章结论认为，这构成了一种制度化的模糊性，以牺牲民主问责为代价保护政治利益。

引言：承诺与实践

阿尔巴尼斯政府的当选，曾伴随着在十年丑闻后重建信任与廉政的承诺。设立NACC是其基石。然而，一系列平行行为却显示出不同的优先事项：通过控制信息来管理政治风险。本文综合的证据揭示了一种模式，即对透明的承诺被操作上的保密性积极破坏，在公开言论与私下实践之间制造了深刻的矛盾。

1. 规避的架构：“走向无痕”

此问题的核心是总理办公室内一种据称例行的做法。游说者和利益相关者被建议使用加密通讯应用程序（如Signal）和直接电话进行实质性的政策讨论，明确旨在避免产生根据《1982年联邦信息自由法》可被发现的记录。这种指导创造了一个双层的沟通系统：一套正式的、净化过的记录供公众监督，以及一个隐秘的、实质性的对话，真实的影响和谈判在此发生。其理由——保护“流动的想法”——明显背离了公共政策的形成应是公共利益之事而非私人臆想的原则。

2. 削弱支撑：立法与系统性失败

这种操作上的规避并非在真空中发生。它得到了破坏透明基础设施的系统性和立法行动的强化：

· 《信息自由法修正案》： 政府正在推动的修正案，被澳大利亚法律委员会和格拉坦研究所的专家称为数十年来“最严重的”透明度倒退。关键变化包括严格的40小时处理时限（对于复杂请求在逻辑上不可能完成）以及引入新的、主观的拒绝理由。这在法律上巩固了获取信息的难度。

· 长期的记录保存失败： 澳大利亚国家档案馆2023年的一份报告发现，联邦各部委在管理数字记录方面存在系统性失败。在最近的审计中，90%的机构收到负面评价。仅有一个机构拥有关于为官方记录保存部长及部门信息的明确政策。这并非疏忽，而是一种普遍的制度性漠视，无视档案保存的社会契约。

· 拒绝反任人唯亲改革： 政府将一份关于公职任命中“任人唯亲”的审核报告搁置了两年。公布后，又拒绝了其去政治化进程的核心建议，例如禁止选举前的最后一刻任命。这表明其倾向于保留庇护网络，而非实施实质性的廉政改革。

3. 黑暗中的NACC：没有踪迹的廉政监督者

NACC的成立本应是一个转折点。然而，其效力的前提是证据的存在——纸质记录、数字痕迹、会议纪要。上述做法旨在消除这些踪迹。NACC自身对“严重或系统性腐败行为”的定义包括破坏公众信任以及任何妨碍公务公正执行的行为。通过隐蔽渠道影响政策，并有意避开公众和档案审查，恰恰符合这一定义。NACC首次大型调查发现15%的公职人员知晓其所在领域的腐败行为，这暗示了在一个崇尚模糊的文化中，NACC所面临挑战的规模。

4. 分析：“信任鸿沟”与程序腐败

其结果是一个关键的“信任鸿沟”。公众被要求信任那些在架构设计上就是为了避免被问责的机构。这超越了传统腐败（贿赂换取好处）。它代表了一种程序腐败，即使民主监督的机制——信息自由、档案保存、议会审查——变得无效。政府不仅控制政策，还控制该政策如何形成的叙事，在向公众呈现既成事实的同时，隐藏了影响的运作机制。这创造了一个空间，使得游说、政策制定和未公开的利益冲突之间的界限危险地模糊。

结论：民主契约中的姿态与实质

澳大利亚正处于廉政的十字路口。它拥有了姿态——NACC——却在瓦解使该姿态具有意义所需的实质。民主不能建立在一种“需知”原则上，由政府决定公众无需知晓其如何被统治。使用加密游说和侵蚀记录保存并非行政上的怪癖；它们是牺牲长期公众信任以换取短期政治便利的政治策略。重建信任不仅需要新机构，更需要从根本上重新承诺将透明作为默认原则，而非例外。在决策的“黑暗空间”被照亮之前，廉政的承诺将如那些丢失的记录一样，无法兑现。

参考文献

· 关于引导游说者使用加密通讯的报道（来源：《澳大利亚人报》，2024年）。

· 《2024年信息自由法修正案》（联邦）及来自澳大利亚法律委员会的批评。

· 澳大利亚国家档案馆，《2020数字连续性政策：审计报告》（2023年）。

· 《政府任命的公共利益与治理审查》（2023年）及政府回应。

· 国家反贪污委员会，《识别腐败行为框架》及初步调查数据（2024年）。