It’s public money so disclose it

Officials can always find excuses for keeping things secret. The Department of Internal Affairs has disgraced itself, however, with its absurd arguments for refusing to release information about ministers’ use of Crown limousines. The DIA has refused to give details about the use of the cars for trips of 1km or less, saying this was plainly for ‘‘personal’’ use. And in fact it seems there is nothing in the law that stops ministers using the cars for personal errands.

But to conclude that the trips are therefore none of the public’s business is absurd. These ‘‘personal’’ trips by very well-paid politicians might well strike the public as not only interesting but scandalous. It is certainly not for any bureaucrat to rule that ‘‘personal’’ use is not to be revealed.

Fortunately the chief ombudsman, Peter Boshier, has seen through this nonsense.

It can’t be ‘‘a principled approach to withhold details of publicly-funded travel merely because such travel was outside the scope of strict ministerial duties’’, he says in his ruling.

‘‘On the contrary, I consider that public interest in disclosure is enhanced where transport funded by the public purse is utilised for non-official matters.’’

Boshier is dead right. Private use of public facilities is exactly when the voters start to prick up their ears and smell a rat.

Perhaps that is the reason for the department’s indefensible delay in processing this request. The matter was referred to the Ombudsman’s Office three years ago. In that time, the department has given a series of reasons for withholding the information.

The natural conclusion, given the daft excuses and the endless delay, is that the bureaucrats are trying to avoid embarrassment to their political bosses. We won’t know the truth of that until the information is finally released. The persistent habit of officials, however, is to try to save their bosses’ blushes rather than to administer the official information legislation without fear or favour.

Now the bluffing has to stop, and only a Cabinet-ordered veto can prevent the information being released. It would be very unwise of the Cabinet to invoke the nuclear option in this case. Since the whole matter is about the ministers themselves, the conflict of interest is too obvious.

And in fact this raises the serious point that the refusal to issue information is often far more damaging than the information itself. It took a long time before governments were forced to issue the details of their spending on matters like accommodation and meals.

But now that these facts are routinely revealed, little fuss is usually made. A minister will nowadays get into trouble only if the wine he ordered or the room he booked was plainly extravagant. The voters are generally fairly tolerant of the very comfortable lifestyles of their political overlords.

Boshier has done us a favour by overruling the bureaucrats. He has cut through the official cant and called for proper accountability. He has told the Government that it can’t call official spending ‘‘private’’ just because it’s personal. When ministers spend public money it is never private.

Don’t cry privacy when spending public money.