Agencies (and the AG's office) overplay the consulation card; all part of the FOI game?

 The second of three related posts.

Justice Jagot's ruling in Dreyfus and Attorney General (Commonwealth of Australia) [2015] AATA 995 on the interpretation and application of the Freedom of information Act provisions regarding third party consultation and the method of assessing the time involved is of significance generally as a somewhat rare Tribunal decision on the subject.

However the Office of Australian Information Commissioner has dealt with a swag of cases over the last year often rejecting agency arguments about these issues. And rejecting what some agencies without foundation seem to regard as a golden rule-that a request that is likely to take more than 40 hours will substantially and unreasonably divert resources.
 
My guess is the reported decisions are the tip of a rather large pile of questionable decisions regarding consultation.Allof which must cost the taxpayer a packet-probably more than the cost of getting on and processing the application in some cases.

Consultation is often required under the FOI act but where it is unnecessary consultation works to slow things down, adds to charges, and as in this case provides the false basis for a refusal to process the application because of a "practical refusal reason"- the work involved "would substantially and unreasonably interfere with the performance of the Minister's functions."(In the case of an agency the test is "would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the agency from its other operations." Section 24A.

OAIC decisions 2015
The Department of Immigration and Border Control unsuccessfully argued to the Acting Australian Information Commissioner that it would need to consult with 600 employees before releasing documents relating to the structure of the Department and various contact lists for particular sections within the Department, including the ‘top structure’ of senior management-in other words details of the organisation chart. 

Commissioner Pilgrim concluded it was not reasonably practicable for the Department to undertake consultation with 600 employees. Consultation was not required.[36]. 

(Battling it out in the OAIC in this case followed earlier attempts by the department to slow things down: a previous request was refused because it did not specify it was a request under the FOI act. The amended request was then refused "on the basis that my reference to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) was made in the subject heading and not in the body of the email. And secondly, on the basis that my request was made directly to the Authorised decision-maker... and not to one of the addresses nominated by the DIBP to receive such requests." [18]. 
When in the course of the resulting slow journey through the review process at OAIC the commissioner sought submissions from the department on points raised by the applicant, the Department didn't bother [43]).

In an earlier decision involving the same department and similar documents Ray Brown and Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Commissioner Pilgrim had reached the same conclusion: that the Department could decide to give access without engaging 527 staff members in consultation. The Department estimated consultation would have taken 1,052 hours.

The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet unsuccessfully argued that spending what the Acting Australian Information Commissioner decided was an over estimate of time processing an application for records relating to the US Central Intelligence Agency extraordinary rendition program was a substantial and unreasonable diversion of resources.

On that widely accepted golden rule referred to above, the commissioner said

30.. "40 hours does not indicate a threshold in which a request can no longer be processed, and requests where processing time is in excess of 40 hours do not automatically amount to a practical refusal reason. This is illustrated in ‘FX’ and Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet [2015] AICmr 39, where I found that a processing time of 53 hours was not an unreasonable diversion of resources and therefore a practical refusal reason did not exist and in ‘GD’ and Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet [2015] AICmr 46, I found that a processing time of 39 hours was not an unreasonable diversion of resources and that a practical refusal reason did not exist."

The commissioner in a previous decision ordered PM&C to process an application for documents relating to David Hicks, rejecting arguments that an additional 20 hours would be needed for consultation with the United States: the consultation provisions "do not include consulting with foreign governments."[31] Processing the application would take between approximately 4.3 and 7 days of an officer's time and would not in any event substantially and unreasonably divert PM&C’s resources from its other operations.

In another case the commissioner decided the PM&C estimate was excessive and placed emphasis on the finding that the claimed diversion of resources was not unreasonable in any event. 

The Department of Education and Training estimated processing an application would take 95 hours. Based on a sample of relevant documents, the commissioner said retrieval and review would consume approximately 49 hours [22] and consultation around six. This would not substantially and unreasonably divert the Department’s resources from its other operations.

Personal experience
I've had quite a few personal experiences of really questionable 'need to consult' calls.The Attorney General's Department consulted me recently because they said a document sought in an FOI application contained information about me. As best I could tell-they just sent me part of the document- the information consisted of my name and a summary of a couple of points made in a submission on the 2010 draft FOI reform bill published on the AGD website!  

Consulting people about their comments on the public record on public policy, in this case, ironically, about open government, is way beyond what the act requires.

While the watchdog's on death row...
The dire circumstances of the Office of Australian Information Commissioner since May 2014 as a result of the Attorney General's attempt to abolish the office, and the squeeze on resources for the FOI function means the watchdog has no capacity to look into agency practices such as this. 

The last OAIC own motion FOI investigation of any kind into agency FOI practices was undertaken in 2014- the second I think since 2010. 

The OAIC 2015-16 Corporate Plan (Goal 2) notes the only funding for the FOI function is for the conduct of review decisions-nothing for investigations and much else. 

In review decisions that chew up funds available the commissioner keeps saying the same things but agencies go on their merry ways.

Maybe a rare AAT decision on the subject might command a bit more attention and acknowledgement in practice.

Two posts on related matters here and here.

The Attorney General's Appointments Diary: Tribunal rules his man mostly got it wrong

The first of three related posts.

Justice Jagot in Dreyfus and Attorney General (Commonwealth of Australia) [2015] AATA 995 overturned the decision by the Office of the Attorney General to refuse to process a Freedom of Information application for the Attorney General's appointments diary for the period 18 September 2013 to 12 May 2014. 

Justice Jagot ordered the office to process the application by Shadow Attorney General Mark Dreyfus after a finding that processing would not substantially and unreasonably interfere with the performance of the Minister's functions (Sections 24 and 24AA).
 
Justice Jagot was critical of and disagreed with the approach taken by the office in interpreting and applying the act's provisions on third party consultation, and the calculation of the estimated time involved in order to justify the 'substantial and unreasonable' claim:

76.... this is a case where my conclusion is ultimately based on the onus of proof. It has not been established that processing the request would substantially or unreasonably interfere with the performance of the Attorney-General’s functions having regard to the matters required to be considered in s 24AA(2) of the FOI Act.. 

The evidence before Justice Jagot was provided by Paul O'Sullivan the Attorney General's Chief of Staff, a former DFAT official, High Commissioner to New Zealand and head of ASIO. O'Sullivan is the delegated FOI decision maker in the Attorney General's office.

O'Sullivan had estimated 228-630 hours would be required to process the application including between 130 and 526 hours in consulting persons whose names appeared in the record. 

Justice Jagot ruled most of the consultations were not required by the act and found O'Sullivan's time estimates for other tasks associated with processing the application "unpersuasive", 'generous" and involved "duplication." [74]
  
Justice Jagot said the approach taken by O'Sullivan to the task would defeat the objects of the FOI act, including not only the right of access granted by it but also the express intention of the Parliament that functions and powers are to be performed and exercised, as far as possible, to facilitate and promote public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost.

15. Because the process of reasoning involves a hypothetical situation the Minister’s or agency’s assessment will necessarily be based on estimates about which, I accept, reasonable minds might differ. It is fundamental, however, that the process of estimation reflects the requirements of the FOI Act. If, for example, the resources that would have to be used are estimated on the basis of requirements for consultation when the FOI Act does not require consultation, then the capacity to decide if a practical refusal reason exists would be able to be used to defeat the objects of the FOI Act, including not only the right of access granted by the Act but also the express intention of the Parliament that functions and powers given by the Act are to be performed and exercised, as far as possible, to facilitate and promote public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost. The same thwarting of the statutory objects and the intention of Parliament would result if, for example, the estimate was based on an expectation that examining the documents would require a detailed and time-consuming exercise of going behind the face of the documents to try to ascertain if any exemption might apply when, on any reasonable view, no exemption could be engaged.

Consultation not required
Justice Jagot rejected O'Sullivan's evidence concerning security risks and the need to consult with bodies such as the Australian Federal Police, State and Territory police or intelligence agencies [34-39]; and rejected his assertion that where the name of business representatives or individuals appear in the diary it would "be necessary in every case to go behind the entry and examine associated documents and undertake a complex process of working out whether, by the disclosure of some pattern or mosaic, the disclosure of the information might unreasonably disclose personal or business information of the relevant kind such as to require consultation with the person concerned.' [40].

Importantly, Justice Jagot said it is not necessary to go behind the face of an entry in the diary of a planned meeting with a business representative in order to try to find if there is any reason which might found a reason to consult [44, 45-48].

The names of public servants disclosed as scheduled to attend meetings was not the basis for a claim that the personal privacy exemption could apply [50] therefore not triggering consultation requirements.

Entries in the diary about cabinet meetings [54-57] and a meeting with the Prime Minister's Office [60] were among examples raised in a sample provided in evidence. Justice Jagot said they did not raise consultation or exemption issues.

Correct approach 
Justice Jagot said the obligation to consult prior to disclosure of information concerning  business affairs of a third party was necessary only if the decision maker concluded that the third party "might reasonably wish to make an exemption contention." The test is not whether it appears that a person might wish to make an exemption contention but the identification of "some rational basis which the agency or Minister can discern indicating that disclosure of the document would, or could be expected to, unreasonably affect such a person adversely" in respect of his or her lawful business or professional affairs (etc) [41-42].

Where names of individuals appeared, similar considerations applied:

49,Where an entry in the diary discloses the name of a person who was scheduled to meet the Attorney-General within the period of the requests and nothing more, I am unable to accept that in the ordinary course disclosure of that fact would or even could “involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about any person”. As such, I am unable to see a rational basis upon which it could appear that every one of these person(s) might reasonably wish to make an exemption contention. As above, I do not accept that the decision-maker is obliged to search for something not apparent on the face of the document or not otherwise known. If there is nothing apparent on the face of the document and nothing otherwise known to the decision-maker then it cannot appear to the decision maker that a person might reasonably wish to make an exemption contention. The mere appearance of a person’s name in the diary, in my view, is insufficient for it to be apparent on the face of the document that a person might reasonably wish to make an exemption contention. Where, however, something more is disclosed such as the purpose of the meeting or there is some known sensitivity I accept that further consideration or even consultation under s 27A might be required because the view might be reached that such a person might reasonably wish to make an exemption contention. Again, however, my review of the diary extracts indicates that this will be a rare case....

52. Because it is fundamental to the proper administration of the FOI Act, I should reiterate my view that I consider that it would be wrong to approach the required task on the basis that: (i) some people might be sensitive to or concerned about the fact that they have met a Minister in the Minister’s official capacity or that such people might prefer, even strongly prefer, that the fact of their meeting not be disclosed; or (ii) the decision-maker is subject to some obligation to search for material not known or otherwise apparent from the face of the document to which access is sought to try to find some basis for it to appear that a person might reasonably wish to make an exemption contention. There is no foundation in the FOI Act to perform the functions which it requires with a view to such sensitivities. To administer the FOI Act on some other basis would work against the intention of the Parliament. It would elevate personal sensitivities which on a rational view could not involve an unreasonable disclosure of personal information about any person into something that an agency or Minister would have to assess, thereby running the risk (as in the present case) that the agency or Minister perceives that an extraordinary amount of time and effort would be involved in processing the FOI request. By such means, if permitted, the intentions of the Parliament as identified in s 3 would be thwarted.
53. I should also reiterate the relevance to my conclusions in the present case of the fact that the diary extracts in evidence seem to me to consist, in the main, of a series of brief and anodyne entries relating to appointments and work arrangements of the Attorney-General now more than 18 months old. While an underlying issue which was discussed at a meeting might be ongoing, the entries in the diary merely describe who was to be met, not the contents of the meeting, and are now essentially historical.

 Incorrect estimates
O'Sullivan's estimate of the time involved was "calculated on an incorrect basis. While some consultation might be required because of the personal privacy and business documents exemptions "it has not been proved that anything like 130 - 526 hours might be involved. I consider it likely that any consultation required by the FOI Act will be very many orders of magnitude less than has been proposed."[51]. 


No substantial and unreasonable interference with AG"s performance of functions.
 As to the work involved:

75.... I do not accept that this is capable of involving a substantial and unreasonable interference with the performance of the Attorney-General’s functions. The fact that only one person in the Attorney-General’s Office can perform this function because this person is the only one with the relevant software available (as Mr O’Sullivan indicated) and that the task of deletion involves a number of steps is not particularly material to the performance of the Attorney-General’s functions unless, perhaps, the person doing the deletions is the Attorney-General himself or a senior member of staff, neither of which was suggested to be the case...
77.To the extent I am able to make findings about what work will be likely to be involved I do not consider that work will substantially interfere with the performance of the Attorney-General’s functions. I accept that the work itself will not be trivial or insignificant, but that does not mean that such work is likely to involve a substantial interference with the performance of the Attorney-General’s functions. Nor do I accept that any interference as there might be will be unreasonable. Against this, at the level of principle, I consider that there is a significant public interest in knowing the outline of the daily activities of elected representatives, particularly a senior Minister in charge of such an important portfolio as the Attorney-General. I accept the applicant’s submission that to the extent there is any interference with the Attorney-General performing his functions (which, in my view, has not been proved), the interference would be reasonable having regard to several factors, being:

i) There is considerable public interest in the release of the Attorney’s diary;
ii) No steps have been taken to make the diary public; and

3. The actual diversion of resources involved in responding to the request should be minimal.

78. For these reasons I consider that the decision communicated to the applicant by letter dated 13 June 2014 that a practical refusal reason exists because the work involved in processing the request(s) would substantially and unreasonably interfere with the performance of the Attorney-General’s functions should be set aside and, in lieu thereof, I decide that no practical refusal reason under s 24 of the FOI Act exists in relation to the request(s), with the consequence that the request(s) are required to be processed in accordance with the FOI Act.

Next steps?
It is uncertain whether the Attorney General will appeal the decision, and if not what will be released when the application is processed. 

Justice Jagot's comments about the " significant public interest in knowing the outline of the daily activities of elected representatives, particularly a senior Minister in charge of such an important portfolio as the Attorney-General" provides an interesting backdrop.

Two posts on related matters here and here. 

Sydney council adds ' 2010, year of the great fire' to Sir Humphrey's list

The Sydney Morning Herald on the mysterious $20 million fire at Liverpool City Council (NSW) that according to staff at the time destroyed 8905 files.

Councillors were unconvinced of the report's accuracy and scope and ordered a new investigation in response to queries from residents.

"A more professional investigation last year found that only 624 hard copy files, many of them dating back decades or more and of limited contemporary use, had been lost in the fire," a spokesman for the council said.

Cabinet document open access: Sir Humphrey had it nailed

Enjoyed episodes of the marvellous Yes Minister series over the break, including The Skeleton in the Cupboard where Sir Humphrey is anxious to avoid disclosure of his involvement as a junior official thirty years before in a monumental stuff up. As the file is now due for open access the Minister asks:
How am I going to explain the missing documents to "The Mail"?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Well, this is what we normally do in circumstances like these.
James Hacker: [reads memo] This file contains the complete set of papers, except for a number of secret documents, a few others which are part of still active files, some correspondence lost in the floods of 1967...
James Hacker: Was 1967 a particularly bad winter?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: No, a marvellous winter. We lost no end of embarrassing files.
James Hacker: [reads] Some records which went astray in the move to London and others when the War Office was incorporated in the Ministry of Defence, and the normal withdrawal of papers whose publication could give grounds for an action for libel or breach of confidence or cause embarrassment to friendly governments.
James Hacker: That's pretty comprehensive. How many does that normally leave for them to look at?
James Hacker: How many does it actually leave? About a hundred?... Fifty?... Ten?... Five?... Four?... Three?... Two?... One?... *Zero?*
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes, Minister. 

Ah, relief we've left all that nonsense behind in the 33 years since the program first aired. 

Haven't we ?

Archives cabinet documents release -1990-1991 still too recent for some

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. 

Australia's Open Government Partnership ambition-twaddle or true commitment?

2016 should tell!

Judith Sloan writing in The Australian includes Australia's commitment to the OGP in her list of contenders for Twaddle of the Year 2015, along with the innovation statement:

My favourite part of the innovation statement is the bit about government as exemplar, an example of twaddle-speak itself. But let me turn to the master: “Right across the board you will see there are measures to ensure that government is digitally transformed, so that it is nimble, so that you can deal with government as easily as you can with eBay or with one of the big financial institutions.”
And just to give substance to this government as exemplar gig, you will be pleased to know that “Prime Minister Turnbull has committed the Australian government to membership of the Open Government Partnership and public consultation was launched to develop the National Action Plan for open government. The Open Government Partnership is a voluntary, multi-stakeholder international initiative created to promote transparency, empower citizens, fight corruption, and harness new technologies to strengthen governance.”
And here’s a further heads-up: “the Prime Minister’s aim is for the first Australian National Action Plan to include ambitious actions that support the OGP grand challenges of improving public services and better managing public resources. If we want this to happen, Australia needs your suggestions and input!”

Sloan in the end gives the prize to Ban Ki Moon for comments about the Paris climate conference.

The Prime Minister can put Sloan herself up there as a contender with deeds that match the words: by July 2016 an OGP National Action Plan developed in the true spirit of partnership with civil society containing a set of ambitious, concrete commitments to reform on transparency, open government, citizen participation and technological innovation.

And before the consultation process gets into second gear, canning the bill to abolish the Office of Australian Information Commissioner. 

The bill is opposed by a majority in the Senate and sits in the Bills List not just gathering dust but strengthening the hand of Sloan and others of sceptical bent.

The Australian Open Government Partnership Network and its members are prepared to take the PM at his word at this stage.

The Network's Interim Steering Committee is
Dr David Solomon (Accountability Roundtable), Chair,
Greg Thompson (Transparency International Australia)

Kat Szuminska (OpenAustralia Foundation)

Dr Nicholas Gruen (Open Knowlege Australia)
Leanne O'Donnell (Blueprint for Free Speech)

Jon Lawrence (Electronic Frontiers Australia)

Dr Johan Lidberg, School of Journalism Monash University

Craig Thomler, Social Media Planner, Digital Specialist, Gov 2.0 Advocate.
 

Convener Peter Timmins.

Sign in here to learn more about the Network as things move ahead in the new year. 

FOI veteran Waterford lets go with a few wild swings and low blows.

When Jack Waterford Editor- at- Large at The Canberra Times talks Freedom of Information, the rest of us listen. 

After all Waterford has been on this beat from the very beginning, lodging a raft of FOI applications on 1 December 1982, the day the Commonwealth FOI act commenced, followed by hundreds in the years since including two that went all the way to the High Court; was named the Graham Perkin Australian Journalist of the Year in 1985 for his work on FOI, and in 2007, Canberra Citizen of the year and a Member of the Order of Australia.

His opinion piece last week "FOI laws are resented and resisted" is as usual a good read, including some history about John Wood, another FOI champion, and commentary on the AAT decision in Wood and PM&C, the subject also of an earlier report by Chris Knaus about access to documents concerning the Ombudsman in 2011, Alan Asher.

Waterford on a roll
Waterford goes on to give the government a justified serve over the attempt to abolish the Office of Australian Information Commissioner, criticises the attacks on information access including by Public Service Commissioner John ('FOI very pernicious') Lloyd, and delivers a tough assessment of former Australian Information Commissioner Professor John McMillan and the OAIC generally, stating

"I could never be convinced that most of the quasi-judicial officers of the office of the Australian Information Commissioner were ever very much in favour of FOI or, in practice, very likely to cause disclosure to occur, at least within a reasonable period of time."

That's a wild swing, low blow or both.

In getting stuck into the OAIC and McMillan, Waterford makes no mention of the factors beyond control of the office that impacted on performance of the OAIC since establishment in November 2010 and tops it off with an error about the earlier IC decision in Wood.

Wood case
Recounting the background to the AAT decision, Waterford writes that PM&C's arguments for keeping the document in dispute secret when the matter came before the OAIC a year previously "very much impressed the FOI Commissioner and received his fairly usual rubber stamp."

Well mostly, the arguments didn't impress the commissioner at all.

Deputy President Forgie in a decision that Waterford praises reached exactly the same decision as then commissioner Popple who he criticises: that subject to two deletions the document is not exempt:

80.For the reasons I have given, I affirm the decision of the Information Commissioner dated 19 December 2014...

(Of course Deputy President Forgie takes longer to get there adding along the way valuable guidance about the interpretation and application of the FOI act.)

Waterford in making the rubber stamp remark does not mention that the commissioner in that 2014 decision [83-119]  rejected the deliberative process exemption claims by PM&C for seven other documents consisting of briefs, question time briefs and briefing notes for Senate estimates hearings and a record of conversation between the Ombudsman and Secretary of the Department.

PM&C had argued disclosure would be contrary to the public interest, the end of 'frank and candid' with flow on dire consequences. Having not impressed or persuaded the commissioner the department did not seek further review of those parts of the commissioner's decision. Presumably departmental officers soldier on providing Prime Minister Turnbull (three prime ministers on from the one who received the briefing note) with frank and candid advice despite it all.

OAIC

in his comments about the OAIC which has endured the axe hanging in the air for 19 months since the government announced the intention to abolish the office, Waterford does not mention issues that cumulatively hampered performance: limited powers and no sticks (eg review decisions not binding; no penalties), no political appetite for reforms and modifications to the scheme suggested by McMillan and others, fewer resources than anticipated and expected, and importantly a failure of leadership at the ministerial level that left McMillan to fly the flag for culture change while faced with senior public servants 'going red' at the mere mention of FOI and open government. 

Contrary to Waterford's comment that he can't think of one OAIC decision that has amounted to much, an SBS report this week suggests quite a bit of commendable OAIC disagreement with agency decisions: of the 352 IC decisions examined 

"141 (40 per cent) were to 'set aside' and change FOI decision outcomes completely..A further 38 (11 per cent) review decisions were to 'vary', where the OAIC mostly agreed with the FOI decisions made by government agencies, but disagreed with the reasoning."

That strike rate doesn't include mediated results that aren't formal IC decisions. Results aren't published. I expect many involved the agency giving ground. .

I've been critical generally and sometimes from personal experience of some IC decisions and of unacceptable delays, and concerned that few own motion investigations or compliance reviews have been undertaken. Much of the fault lies at the highest levels of government, where Attorney General Brandis is apparently still keen to bring the whole show down.

However the wild swings and low blows in the Waterford commentary aren't justified.

Privacy Commissioner not Australian Information Commissioner in the money?

I'd like to think Paul Farrell in The Guardian and others on social media are right that additional funding for the Office of Australian Information Commissioner in the Mid Year budget update for "Enhanced Welfare Payment Integrity — non-employment income data matching" until 2019 may signal the end of the long drawn out unsuccessful government attempt to close the office. 

The funds are earmarked for the privacy functions of the office. 

The Budget in May included funding for privacy functions and (reduced) funding for FOI functions in 2015-16 but nothing in forward estimates for the three years to follow.  The government plan is to scatter some functions around including packing the Privacy Commissioner off to the Australian Human Rights Commission if/when the abolition bill passes the Senate. The FOI oversight and review functions would be scrapped.

However another budget document revealed $4.2 million was allocated in the Budget over four years for the Privacy Commissioner to provide oversight of privacy implications arising from the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Act 2015 and the Counter‑Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Act 2014. 

The latest additional funding could pass as more of the same. That is money to accompany the Privacy Commissioner wherever he ends up.

Let's hope the funding decision indicates something else: That someone has joined the dots to see that standing firm (without majority support in the Senate to pass the bill) jars with the grander more recent government decision to embrace transparent, open government and to this end, proceed with membership of the Open Government Partnership. The decision requires endorsement of a declaration that includes a commitment 

to providing access to effective remedies when information or the corresponding records are improperly withheld, including through effective oversight of the recourse process.

Australian Open Government Partnership Network Update

The Australian Open Government Partnership Network has a Landing Page if you are interested in linking up with other civic minded democracy supporters and reformers. Help spread the word. A website and online Forum soon we hope.

The network is an independent coalition of individuals and organisations formed for the purpose of engaging with government in the development of Australia's OGP National Action Plan. The network will provide a forum for the exchange of information and ideas on areas for reform, seek to ensure the action plan is developed in the true spirit of partnership, and work to assist government in the determination of priorities for consideration.

A member of the Network Steering Committee and Co-founder of OpenAustralia Foundation Katherine (Kat) Szuminska has been invited to the annual civil society peer exchange meeting in The Hague, Netherlands in January for civil society leaders that are pivotal OGP actors at home.
  
The Government run information sessions commenced in Brisbane yesterday, and continue in Sydney this evening (look forward to seeing you there), Melbourne tomorrow and Canberra on Thursday. Meanwhile, hardly stopping for breath, the Government is rolling out the second stage of the consultation - through to the end of February. Don't rush, everyone in Canberra is about to down tools for a spell.

For your interest, maybe, my chat about the OGP with Jen Fleming on ABC Radio yesterday-at 1.49.00 in this recording (disappears in seven days).

PM: OGP goals "directly align with Australia's long, proud tradition of open and transparent government."

Media release: Australian Open Government Partnership Network

Network of civic citizens to engage on open government

 A national coalition of organisations and individuals is gearing up to respond to the Federal Government’s invitation to engage on issues concerning how to make government work better, focusing on transparency, open government, citizen participation and technological innovation.

The government has unveiled plans for wide ranging consultation over the next six months in the course of development of a National Action Plan to complete membership requirements of the Open Government Partnership. Information sessions are scheduled this week in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra.

http://ogpau.govspace.gov.au/register-to-attend-an-ogp-australia-information-session/

Australia announced the intention to join the partnership in May 2013 but had not progressed the application until the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet last month released details of steps to finalise membership by July 2016.

This requires development in partnership with the public of a two year plan of concrete commitments for reform.

http://www.dpmc.gov.au/pmc/media/2015/open-government-partnership-public-consultation-australian-government%E2%80%99s-national-action-plan-now-open

The Australian Open Government Partnership Network will bring together a wide range of civil society groups and individuals.

The Chair, former Queensland Integrity Commissioner David Solomon welcomed the announcement and the government’s commitment to the Open Government Declaration.

http://www.opengovpartnership.org/about/open-government-declaration

When Australia was invited to join in September 2011, the partnership had eight members including the United States, United Kingdom, Indonesia and Brazil.

 In 2015 sixty nine countries have completed or are in the process of completing membership requirements.

Dr Solomon said “ Australia has stood to the side while reformers elsewhere identified and acted upon plans to improve government and government engagement with the public.” We look forward to working with government now to catch up.”

The network will provide a forum for the exchange of information and ideas on areas for reform, seek to ensure the plan is developed in the true spirit of partnership, and work to assist government in the determination of priorities for consideration.

“Democracy is a defining feature of good government" Dr Solomon said.

“Listening, discussing and taking on board the thoughts and ideas of the citizenry is a vital element in making democracy work.”

Media Contact: Network Convener Peter Timmins-0413256777.

Organisations and individuals interested in the network-email peter.timmins1@gmail.com-a website and forum coming soon.

An independent network of supporters of Open Government Partnership?

Sorry for silence here for a week or so , but.. ...


I've been busy working towards a get together in Sydney on Friday 11 December of some of the organisations and individuals who wish to engage with the Federal government on issues concerning the Open Government Partnership, given consultation is about to start on development of a national action plan of reform measures around transparency, accountability, open government and citizen participation.


Experience in other OGP member countries, the UK for instance is that an independent network can play an important role in collaborating with and challenging government to develop and implement ambitious reforms through membership of the partnership. 


Not a great time of the year for getting people together at short notice, but  invitations have gone out and look forward to exchanging thoughts with those who can make it.


Organisations that have expressed interest in the independent network idea include
 
Accountability Roundtable


Australian Communications Consumer Action Network

Australian Council of Social Services


Blueprint for Free Speech


Civil Society Australia 

Code for Australia

Creative Commons Australia

Electronic Frontiers Australia

Independent Community Accountability Network

Internet Australia

Open Australia Foundation

Open Knowledge Australia

Public Interest Advocacy Center

Synod of Victoria and Tasmania Uniting Church of Australia

Transparency International Australia 


There are other irons in the fire and individuals who support the concept will of course be part of this.The priority at the moment is to see if we can put the foundations in place.


Email me peter.timmins1@gmail.com if you would like to register an interest.


Government information sessions about the OGP and the national action plan consultations are scheduled next week in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. Get along if you can. I'll be at Sydney on Tuesday. 


Democracy is hard but worthwhile work. We can make a difference.

 

Open Government Partnership activity off and running

Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet
 If you haven't so far, look at the published material, subscribe to the OGP Au mailing list for updates and news or follow the OGP Au RSS feed. 

The department is interested in feedback by 11 December on the vision and framework  (Stage 1 Blog post) and on the draft Background material. Tweet to #ogpau.

Information sessions are scheduled in the week of 14-18 December in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra.The Canberra session will be broadcast live for online participation and video recordings of sessions will made available online where possible in the week following.

The information sessions are for citizens and organisations interested in understanding and potentially contributing to the process of creating Australia’s first 2-year OGP National Action Plan.

The sessions will provide a background on the Open Government Partnership, what Australia must do to fulfil its membership requirements, and how the community can work with the Australian Government to develop the National Action Plan collaboratively, including how the 6 month consultation will work.

There will be an opportunity for questions about Australia's OGP membership process and how individuals  and organisations can work constructively with the Australian Government throughout the consultation.

Details are:

Brisbane: 14 December from 4:00pm – 5:15pm (local time) - immediately prior to an Open Data Institute Queensland event, hence the timing and shortened session.
Register
 
Sydney: 15 December from 5:00 – 6:30pm (local time)
Register

Canberra: 16 December from 5:00 – 6:30pm (local time) LIVE STREAMED
Register
To participate online register as a remote participant.

Melbourne: 17 December from 5:00 – 6:30pm (local time)
Register  

For more government information about OGP see the OGPau website 

Non government-civil society 
As the name indicates the Open Government Partnership is a partnership, a partnership between government and the citizenry to jointly explore how to make government better through initiatives to promote transparency, empower citizens, fight corruption, and harness new technologies to strengthen governance.
 
The experience of other countries well down the OGP path highlights the important role in support of non-government participation of a mechanism independent of government for those who wish to contribute to the development of the national action plan. All the more so as there is no formal mechanism such as a stakeholder forum or advisory committee in government plans so far.

So individuals and organisations that advocated Australia join the partnership are in the process of establishing an Australian Open Government Partnership Network along the lines of the UK model.  

The network would collaborate with and challenge government to develop and implement ambitious open government reforms through membership of the OGP.

Dr David Solomon, former Queensland Integrity Commissioner has agreed to take the Chair on an interim basis. I'm acting as convener of the group and we are hopeful of a first opportunity to talk through some of the issues in Sydney on 10 or 11 December.

Organisations that have to date expressed interest in being part of the network include  Transparency International Australia, Accountability Roundtable, Electronic Frontiers Australia, Open Australia Foundation, Open Knowledge Foundation, Tax Justice Network, Civil Society Australia, Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, and Internet Australia. I'm waiting to hear back from others.

Individuals will be invited to join once we have the nucleus of a network in place.

Those interested not on my radar so far please email me peter.timmins1@gmail.com or call 0413256777.

Good luck to us all.