Plenty to fill columns in the media on New Years day with the annual cabinet document release by Archives Australia, this year for 1990-1991, the last years of the Hawke government.
Not widely reported was that the release comes with the usual mysteries concerning 'the small amount of material" withhheld. Who knows at what point these elements of ancient history become publicly known and acknowledged ancient history.
Three cabinet documents are withheld in their entirely-not even the title can be disclosed- because disclosure"would damage Australia's security, defence or international relations – s33(1)(a)."
Twenty six documents are released with redactions ("Open with exception"-OWE) based on this and other provisions in section 33 of the Archives Act.
Gabrielle Chan in The Guardian writes about the document released with redactions ("Open with exceptions"-OWE) concerning the Coronation Hill mining lease held by BHP in an area that is now a part of Kakadu national park in the Northern Territory.
The Submission 7994 (Response to Resource Assessment Commission (RAC) inquiry into
use of resources of Kakadu Conservation Zone - Decision 15315) is the only OWE document I can find published online with reasons for deletions. Pages 53-56 containing "information provided by the Attorney General's Department relating to matters that could be subject of legal proceedings" are redacted.
That advice was provided in 1991. According to Archives the "information continues to be sensitive despite the passage of time and the information has enduring confidentiality. The public's interest to know about the decisions of government is outweighed by the need for the information to be protected from release because of ongoing sensitivities.Therefore it would be contrary to the public interest for information to be disclosed."
(Counterpoint: In 1979 the Senate Standing
Committee recommended against the inclusion of a legal professional privilege
exemption
in the Archives Bill, to no avail. Seventeen years ago the Australian Law Reform Commission recommended the professional privilege
exemption should be removed from the Archives Act, to no avail. Quite a few other ALRC recommendations in that report were not acted upon. Records law and practice is an area that needs updating, not just on the "open/closed' scale but in 2016, in light of technological developments and the move towards 'digital only' records.)
(Correction: at least two other documents OWE and published online with reasons for refusal are New Policy Proposals for the 1991 Budget (amounts for funding new activities of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service redacted on grounds information is still sensitive and disclosure "could compromise future activities and impair its ability to carry out its statutory functions") and Petroleum Resource Rent Tax-revenue sharing (one page redacted on legal privilege grounds, the reasons given in the exact terms used for redaction of advice from the Attorney General's Department in Submission 7994 mentioned above.)
Other head scratch redactions from documents now 24-25 years old (apart from redactions to a raft of security and intelligence related documents) are two budget documents one of which is about revenue sharing the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax; Threats against civil aviation; Australia's policy approach to Papua New Guinea; Australia-Taiwan relations; Australia-Iran relations - control of Iranian students in Australia; and British atomic tests - personal compensation for aboriginals.
From the Archives website-not easy to find from the home page IMO.
The 1988-1989 cabinet records released on 1 January provide plenty of interest for the buffs and interesting pickings for the mainstream at a slow news time of the year.
As to the admittedly small amount of information still withheld after all these years, a plus that no document is withheld in its entirety.
But still plenty of room for head scratching.
What passes for usual (see last year), parts of various documents concerning Antarctica are withheld. All interested parties no doubt guess those parts don't sit well with our sovereignty claim.
What officials judge shouldn't be revealed about what cabinet and senior officials knew then concerning the South Pacific, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and China is another matter, probably to do with spooks and intelligence matters.
Clearly that's the case with withheld parts of "People's Republic of China intelligence
services activities in Australia" and "Eastern European and Cuban
intelligence activities in Australia." As to the withheld part of the title of the
submission "Measures to improve
Australia's High Frequence (HF) Signal Intelligence Capability.." - any guesses?
Parts of submissions still relevant to
the current Mr Fluffy asbestos problem in the ACT and NSW are disclosed but other parts of
Memorandum 6034 and Submission 6037 on the subject are withheld for a range of reasons. Including yes, believe it or not, because of likely damage Australia's security, defence or international
relations. legal privilege not outweighed in the judgment of officials by the public interest in disclosure.
Parts of "Cape York spaceport – Commonwealth support" are withheld because of damage to security, defence or international relations.
You have to wonder at what point officials are comfortable for our ancient history to become our publicly known and acknowledged ancient history.
From National Archives Australia, the section dealing with withheld records:
