 |
| Dahl-Charlie and the Chocolate.. |
 |
| Lewis-Narnia and all that.. |
None of the 277 people on the list (pdf courtesy of BBC) are identifiable Australians-Imperial honours were the go until the Whitlam government abolished them and created the Order of Australia in 1975-although the request may have been limited to British names.
What's the likely story here?
Documents concerning consideration of names for submission for Imperial awards, up to 1974, and the later records held by the Office of the Governor General concerning the Council of the Order of Australia, the first of which are now 37 years old, in theory, should be well into open access (now after 20 not 30 years) and available from National Archives Australia. However unlike the UK, where personal information protections in the FOI act relate only to information concerning "a living individual," there is a hurdle: our archives act (s 33(1)(g)) qualifies the right to access through a provision that protects "information or matter the disclosure of which .. would involve the unreasonable disclosure of information relating to the personal affairs of any person (including a deceased person.)"
Documents concerning consideration of names for submission for Imperial awards, up to 1974, and the later records held by the Office of the Governor General concerning the Council of the Order of Australia, the first of which are now 37 years old, in theory, should be well into open access (now after 20 not 30 years) and available from National Archives Australia. However unlike the UK, where personal information protections in the FOI act relate only to information concerning "a living individual," there is a hurdle: our archives act (s 33(1)(g)) qualifies the right to access through a provision that protects "information or matter the disclosure of which .. would involve the unreasonable disclosure of information relating to the personal affairs of any person (including a deceased person.)"
I don't know whether anyone has had a crack at this. Or sought records still held by the Office of the Governor General under the Freedom of Information Act. On the latter, probably not, given that the current battle over whether guidelines for awards are documents of "an administrative nature" subject to the act seems to be a first. A second hurdle once over the first would be whether the FOI act personal privacy conditional exemption s 47F applies.
Two significant differences to the Archives Act: the FOI definition of personal information makes no reference to a person as living or deceased. And section 47F includes an additional public interest test, not found in archives legislation (don't ask me!). I'd expect disclosure under FOI of names of those who declined an award would be unreasonable in the absence of consent (where practicable, from next of kin in the case of a deceased person) and in any event that public interest considerations in favour of release would not be strong.
But otherwise idle researchers out there, your time starts now!
But otherwise idle researchers out there, your time starts now!
"I'd expect disclosure under FOI of names of those who declined an award would be unreasonable in the absence of consent (where practicable, from next of kin in the case of a deceased person) and in any event that public interest considerations in favour of release would not be strong."
ReplyDelete2 of my Australian ancestors declined knighthoods(both of them offered 2x, one accepted the 2nd time and the other refused both times) though they aren't on the Beeb's list(probably too old). They were from your neck of the woods, too, Peter - one campaigned for the abolition of slavery/transportation and the death penalty in Australia(you'd think they'd want to hang him!). Happy to help if they aren't too old, one died in 1873, and the other in the 1950s. Cheers, M.
No, no bar to pulling those sort of details out of the family closet and telling the rest of us about rels, or their own, strong principles. I've often wondered how anyone who knew about convict settlement horrors could sign on for an Imperial honour.
ReplyDeleteThat defiance might be contagious among the starving masses, I guess. I think that the rejections would make a far more interesting version of The Aus Day Honours - it's pretty yawneriffic, clearly Gillard's PR staff think so, too.
ReplyDeleteWord of mouth is a more fruitful way to commence an FoI enquiry, I swear that if it was left to the government to open up, more often than not, the docs simply wouldn't exist...
I haven't yet had a chance to read the AFR Mag's story about this, I just took the glad wrap off my paper today. M