Search This Blog

Thursday, January 28, 2016

Tl Australia urges inclusion of anti-corruption measures in OGP National Action Plan

"Transparency International Australia is calling on the Australian government to address critical deficiencies in Australia’s anti-corruption laws, as the country falls further on the international Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) for the third year in a row.
 Today it was revealed that world-wide perceptions of the level of corruption in Australia’s government sector continue to worsen, with Australia’s CPI score falling to 79, down from 85 in 2012, 81 in 2013 and 80 in 2014.
Australia is now ranked 13th out of the 168 countries included in the Index – down six positions since 2012, and joining countries like Libya, Brazil, Spain and Turkey as big decliners over that period.

The annual Index compiled by Transparency International uses 12 surveys of expert assessment and views of business people globally. The highest ranked country is Denmark with a score of 91.

TI Australia’s incoming chairman The Hon. Anthony Whealy QC described the continued slide as “the result of inaction from successive governments who have failed to address weaknesses in Australia’s laws and legal processes.

“The delay in responding to these issues has now made reform critical and a commitment to ramp up efforts to tackle foreign bribery, which has particularly impacted perceptions of Australia, is now urgent.”

As a priority action, Mr Whealy and new TI Australia CEO, Phil Newman, are calling on the Australian Government to commit to enacting long overdue reforms to Australia’s foreign bribery laws before the end of 2016, as a crucial indicator of the country’s seriousness in fighting corruption.

“With Australia’s worst foreign bribery offences having been committed by former or current government-owned entities – the Australian Wheat Board, Note Printing Australia and Securency Limited – there is no excuse not to have implemented all of the OECD’s reform recommendations in this area by the end of the year,” Mr Newman said.

“TI Australia welcomes the Turnbull Government’s move to develop a national Open Government action plan in 2016, and looks forward to working with it on the many issues that must be addressed if we are to improve our corruption perception score and regain leadership on anti-corruption.”

Other key actions identified by TI Australia for arresting the slide in Australia’s global position include:
  • A stronger, broad-based federal anti-corruption agency
  • Reformed, more consistent anti-corruption and political finance regimes across Australia’s State, Territory and Federal governments
  • Strengthening Australia’s anti-money laundering regime and enforcement to ensure public regulators, and key industries like finance and real estate, are not compromised by the flow of dirty money from overseas.
“TI Australia stands ready to work alongside the government and other organisations to improve our anti-corruption measures and uphold Australia’s commitments in this area internationally,” Mr Whealy concluded.

The full Corruption Perceptions Index ranking and regional tables can be found at:

If you are interested in the Open Government action plan, see the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet materials.
And get involved with the Australian Open Government Partnership Network, an independent coalition of individuals and organisations like TI Australia, formed for the purpose of engaging with government in this process.

Thursday, January 21, 2016

Attorney General Brandis unhappy with the Tribunal over his diary and still intent on wiping out the Office of Information Commissioner

The Attorney General is to appeal the Tribunal decision against his office handed down by Justice Jagot in December and the subject of three posts here earlier in the week. 

No surprise, the appeal to the Federal Court is "in the public interest" according to a spokeswoman for Senator Brandis, quoted in Fairfax:
"the tribunal's findings had "wide-ranging implications for the FOI system. Accordingly, it is in the public interest that there be judicial clarification of how the FOI system operates," she said. Senator Brandis' lawyers will argue that Justice Jagot "erred" by not deciding that FOI decision makers needed to consult all third parties named in diary entries, where "there was some prospect that such an entry might be exempt [from disclosure]," court documents say.
Not sure how the appeal advances the Attorney General's concern expressed before Christmas that "as a general rule minister's diaries ought not to be the subject of FOI Legislation."
Fairfax Media also reports that former Australian Information Commissioner Professor John McMillan said the almost two-year battle between the Coalition and Labor over the diaries could have been avoided with better disclosure rules.
"There is something to be gained by having more predictable standard practises about disclosure rather than tying up enormous resources in disputes of this kind," he said. (McMillan) is renewing calls for Federal Cabinet ministers to regularly publish their diaries on the internet, after they have been edited to remove sensitive information such as private phone numbers.Doing so, he said, would remove the need to ask for diaries under FOI laws and put the information into the public space without a political battle.
Meanwhile the Attorney General apparently was happy to leave it to the Office of Australian Information Commissioner, picked up by ItNews and others that Acting Commissioner Timothy Pilgrim had his term extended for three months until April 2016, the third short term extension since Professor McMillan left.

It's 20 months since the AG announced the intention to ask parliament to abolish the Office which the numbers in the Senate are against with good reason. In the meantime the government has used control over funding to limit OAIC funds for FOI- not a bean for such things as own motion investigations for example- and provide none for information policy functions.

 The top level Organisation Chart from the OAIC website sadly summarises

The contrast between then Senator Brandis in Opposition and as the minister responsible in 2016 couldn't be more stark:
Senate Hansard13 August 2009
Senator Brandis.....The coalition’s commitment to open, responsible government is well known. It was the Liberal Party which pioneered freedom of information legislation in Australia. The Freedom of Information Act.. is the act of a Liberal government—the Fraser government. It is a vital measure to ensure that government remains open, responsible and accountable for its decisions.....The true measure of the openness and transparency of a government is found in its attitudes and actions when it comes to freedom of information. Legislative amendments, when there is need for them, are fine, but governments with their control over the information in their possession can always find ways to work the legislation to slow or control disclosure. That is the practice we are seeing now under the Rudd government, whose heroic proclamations of commitment to freedom of information are falsified by the objective evidence of their practice.

Crikey today has later grand rhetoric:

Monday, January 18, 2016

Contrary to the Attorney General's view, who ministers meet and why should be no state secret

The third of three related posts.

Justice Jagot in Dreyfus and Attorney General (Commonwealth of Australia) [2015] AATA 995 found the the Office of the Attorney General got it wrong in refusing to process a Freedom of Information application for the AG's appointments diary.
 Of course the office involved isn't just any ministerial office. 

It's the office of the minister with overall responsibility for administration of the Freedom of Information Act. And the Attorney General has plans before Parliament that if passed would see him play a bigger role in guiding other ministers, agencies and the tribunal on interpretation and application of the act.

The Attorney General's initial and so far as I have seen only response to the decision is that he opposes release of ministerial diaries as a matter of principle:
"Let's be clear that the principle that I was upholding is the same principle Mr Dreyfus when he was a minister in the previous labor government himself upheld. That is as a general rule minister's diaries ought not to be the subject of FOI Legislation. That was a principle that was invoked by Mr Rudd when he was Prime Minister and by Ms Gillard when she was Prime Minister."
That principle wasn't argued in the Dreyfus case. 

Or argued in the two cases in previous governments the Attorney General may have had in mind, Fletcher and Davies

If a class of documents such as 'ministers' diaries' are to be excluded from FOI, that's a matter for parliament not the courts or tribunal.

Justice Jagot in her decision noted a quite different principle: 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."[77].

In Davies, then Australian Information Commissioner Professor McMillan in the course of finding that there was a 'practical refusal reason' to refuse to process the application, referred to the public interest in disclosure and the practice in other jurisdictions of pro-active release of information about ministerial meetings [45-50]. The up to date list of jurisdictions where information about appointments is published includes Queensland, NSW, (in both cases as a matter of policy not a legislative requirement), United Kingdom (example) and United States.  

The commissioner in deciding in Fletcher that parts of a minister's diary should be disclosed noted various court and tribunal decisions in the UK, Western Australia and Canada where access to appointments diaries had been granted because exemption claims fell flat and/or the public interest in disclosure was strong:The Cabinet Office v Information Commissioner EA/2008/0049 (UK Tribunals Service, 5 January 2009); Re Ravlich and Attorney-General; Minister for Corrective Services [2009] WAICmr 17 (Information Commissioner (WA), 14 August 2009); and Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canada (Minister of National Defence [2011] 2 SCR 306 (Canadian Supreme Court).

The Attorney General's opposite view is of particular interest given the bill in his name before the Senate since October 2014 that would abolish the independent Australian Information Commissioner position and among other arrangements, transfer to the Attorney General himself authority to issue guidelines on the interpretation of the FOI act. Decision makers must have regard to the guidelines in exercising functions under the act. 

From the Explanatory Memorandum: 
Items 12, 13, 16, 17 and 20 omit references to the Information Commissioner in connection with guidelines issued under section 93A of the FOI Act consequential to item 53, which amends section 93A to provide that the Attorney-General, rather than the Information Commissioner, may issue guidelines.

Items 18 and 19 amend section 11C of the FOI Act to replace references to the Information Commissioner with the Attorney-General, as the Attorney-General will have the power to make a determination about matters that would be unreasonable for an agency to publish on the disclosure log.

Item 50 inserts new section 92A of the FOI Act which provides for the Attorney‑General to prepare a report on the operation of the Act each financial year and sets out the matters that must be reported. This ensures that the annual reporting requirements in section 30 of the AIC Act in relation to FOI matters will continue. The Attorney-General will be responsible for reporting on the FOI Act instead of the Information Commissioner. 

Item 53 replaces references to the Information Commissioner being responsible for issuing guidelines under the FOI Act with references to the Attorney-General.
Fortunately the bill seems well blocked in the Senate, so we might be spared the AG's version of guidelines on ministerial diaries and other matters where the public right to know  as set out in the FOI act must be weighed against valid government needs for secrecy and confidentiality.

Ah but the Attorney did say before Christmas he hadn't read the AAT decision and when he had done so would decide if it should be appealed.

It ain't over till its over.

Two posts on related matters here and here.

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....
  1. 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.
  2. 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
  1. 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. 

    Sunday, January 17, 2016

    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.

    Friday, January 15, 2016

    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 ?

    Monday, January 04, 2016

    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.