While our two-soon to be one- national information commissioners battle on working from home....

The UK counterpart is subject to a triennial review, examining whether there is a continuing need for its functions and whether it should continue to operate in its current form; and in Canada the commissioner is under the hammer, although she still has an office to go to, support staff and a budget to get by somehow in the new year. 

On the other hand in New Zealand, the Chief Ombudsman, so far immune is picking up the pace, looking into how agencies and ministers deal with requests for information and asking ministers about 'unwritten' directions to the troops.

UK
"As with all triennial reviews, the review of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) will examine whether there is a continuing need for its functions and whether the organisation should continue to operate in its current form, considering whether services could be provided more effectively and efficiently. If it is determined that there is a continuing need for the organisation in its current form, the review will assess whether the ICO’s control and governance arrangements continue to meet the recognised principles of good corporate governance. The review will also consider the organisation’s structure, efficiency and performance."

(Something along those lines before he reached a conclusion to abolish the office might have helped Attorney General Brandis' case here. The only one to look, Dr Hawke concluded the Office was doing a good job.)


Canada 
Vincent Gogolek writing in the Huffington Post Canada recounts testimony by the information commissioner to a parliamentary committee that the number of complaints her office receives from people being denied access to documents by the federal government has shot up 30 percent over the past year, and that her budget has been reduced by 11 percent over the past four years. Gogolek looks with dismay at the Australian government's attempt to abolish the office altogether, suggesting Canada might at least be confident that the government there wouldn't go that far in an election year.

New Zealand
The New Zealand Chief Ombudsman announced a major review of the practices of government agencies in processing Official Information Act requests, something the Australian Information Commissioneer didn't get around to in four years, although I expect funding constraints not the lack of concern about what goes on were responsible. The aim of the NZ project is to assess the quality and integrity of OIA practice across the public sector and to address any issues that are found.

“The effective operation of the OIA is crucial to our system of open and democratic government, and this review will scrutinise how things are currently operating and set out a framework for systemic improvement where deficiencies are identified.”

In this interview Dame Beverley said in recent months, there had been allegations in the media that OIA processes have been circumvented for a variety of reasons, and that had the potential to erode public confidence in the OIA throughout the core public sector.

Survey documents are going out including to ministers' offices. I liked this question:

Are there current or recent unwritten directives issued by the Minister or senior management to office or agency staff about the operation or implementation of the OIA (including guidance to an agency on notifying or consulting the Minister regarding OIA requests / proposed OIA responses / finalised OIA responses / Ombudsman investigations of OIA complaints)? If yes, please provide details.
 

Pen and paper FOI applications make jaws drop

From the (Toronto) Globe and Mail

"Toby Mendel, president of the Centre for Law and Democracy, recently returned from Rabat where he spoke with officials devising an access law for Morocco. They asked him what the Canadian government had proposed in the area of access reform as part of the global Open Government Partnership initiative. Mendel told them Canada had suggested allowing access requesters to apply electronically, dispensing with the current cumbersome practice of a paper form and a $5 cheque. “Literally, I could see their jaws dropping,” Mendel said in an interview. “Because it was incomprehensible to them that a country like Canada would not already have electronic requesting possibility.”

Well at least Canada is a member of the OGP along with around 60 other countries. Australia continues to sit on the outside- Indonesia, the Philippines and Korea are the only torch-bearers from this region.

Of course if the issue of comparisons with Canada was raised, our government could point out that these days Federal agencies all seem to accept an email application.

But many state governments are still back in the stone age as we found from a quick look around last year.

South Australian Police still take the gold boulder- asking that you personally front up to a police station with your application. Narrowly ahead of those such as NSW Roads and Maritime providing the option of dropping your application into an office or dropping it in the mail. To be fair some NSW agencies such as Finance and Services  appear to have moved into the 1990s in the last year. But there are plenty of other agencies in NSW, SA and Western Australia still opening the stamped  envelopes each morning. And trusting you followed the guidance to pay the application fee-strictly cash, cheque or money order, thank you. (Memo: Once upon a time, long before there were Apps.......)

Ontario hospitals like Australian precedent for protecting health "quality of care" information

But just what is the "Australian approach"?

WikiMedia Commons-Stethoscopes

In Ontario a move to specifically exempt "quality of care" information from the province freedom of information act through an amendment tucked away in budget legislation has advocates and critics hard at it, with Australia featuring in the fine print as one of the precedents for such a provision. According to the Ontario Hospital Association:

Protecting quality of care information is a universally-recognized standard. The protection for a limited and well-defined class of information related to patient safety and quality of care is found in most other Canadian provinces, the United Kingdom and Australia.  In fact, what Ontario has proposed is less stringent than what is available in these other jurisdictions.

In its submission (pdf) to a parliamentary committee OHA states

"that other Canadian jurisdictions, as well as in the United Kingdom and Australia, exempt access to, and the disclosure of hospital quality of care information, either through their respective freedom of information legislation, or other related legislation."

Appendix D includes the research. It hardly amounts to a survey of Australian laws, focusing entirely on Victoria, with a passing reference to Western Australia.

The proposed amendment to the Ontario Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy act would exempt

“information provided in confidence to, or records prepared with the expectation of confidentiality by, a hospital committee to assess or evaluate the quality of health care and directly related programs and services provided by a hospital, if the assessment or evaluation is for the purpose of improving that care and the programs and services.”

According to the OHA research, in Victoria  despite the existence of specific protections for this type of information in the Victorian Health Services Act 1988 

"hospitals generally rely on the exemptions contained in Sections 33 and 35 of the Victoria Freedom of Information Act 1982. Section 33 exempts information from disclosure affecting personal privacy, which is broadly defined. Section 35 exempts documents from disclosure if the material was obtained in confidence or "would divulge any information or matter communicated in confidence".
Hospitals in Victoria report that from an FOI risk management perspective they are very careful about what documentation they create relating to quality assurance activities (i.e., they ensure it is created in a manner that facilitates reliance on section 35). Consequently, in most instances, there is unlikely to be very much by way of difficult documentation to be requested under FOI even if Section 35 cannot be relied upon. Southern Health, the largest public health service in Victoria, reports that based on its reliance on sections 33 and 35 of its FOI legislation, it does not find that FOI legislation significantly impacts its comprehensive safety and quality review programs and accreditation programs for healthcare professionals."

Here is a rundown on the way in which the various Australian state access laws deal with this issue. I haven't looked at differences in the scope of the coverage. Or arguments that protections go too far.

Familiar ring to Canadian journalist disclosure log woes

Surprise!BC flag

I'm sure journalists won't need prompting to bring to the attention of Australian Information Commissioner John McMillan the statement by the British Columbia Minister for Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government that the government has no plans for simultaneous release of documents to the freedom of information applicant and the public. The statement followed a report by the province information and privacy commissioner that found an agency adopting this practice:

"They are narrowly within scope of the law. However, I'm finding the practice is offside the spirit of the law, which is about open and accountable government," the commissioner said.

In arguments that have a familiar ring here, media groups in Canada said the practice "was designed to discourage requests, because journalists will be less willing to put the time and money into a request when they know their competitors will have the same information as quickly as they will." The commissioner recommended the agency provide at least a 24-hour delay in posting records from FOI requests to its website.

The Australian Commissioner having floated a couple of options in a draft, left things up to each agency in the final version of the guidelines (Part 14) on the Disclosure Log:

Agencies and ministers are encouraged to consider this issue and to decide upon an appropriate approach to publishing information in their disclosure log. It is advisable that each agency and minister adopts a guiding principle or practice as to when accessed information will be published under s 11C, so that applicants know of that practice in advance and that they will be treated similarly to other applicants. Further, if an agency or minister decides to provide access to the FOI applicant as at the same time it publishes information in its disclosure log, the agency or minister should consider reducing or waiving any charges it may otherwise have imposed under s 29.. (14.25)

I haven't looked too far so don't know if this is common, but Foreign Affairs and Trade for one have announced the practice of updating the log weekly on a Thursday.

Yes Minister: political interference in Freedom of Information decisions

From The Canadian Press:

"Last summer, Sebastien Togneri (a top political aide to the Minister) issued a terse email to officials in the Public Works Department telling them to "unrelease" a report on the government's real-estate portfolio when he learned it was being sent uncensored to The Canadian Press. The news agency had asked for the 137-page document under the Access to Information Act, and had paid all photocopy fees. Togneri insisted that only 30 pages be released. The file contained sensitive information about the performance of the government's real estate portfolio, such as missed targets and high maintenance costs. A bureaucrat had to dash down to the Public Works mailroom to retrieve the sealed package. And for the next three months, public servants, Justice Department lawyers and consultants all agreed there was no legal basis to withhold any of the document. Despite that consensus, Togneri's view prevailed and the heavily pruned report was sent to The Canadian Press 82 days later than required by the law."

When this was revealed, according to The Canadian Press, the Minister didn't even thrash Togneri with a feather, commending him as "an employee who has exceptional parliamentary skills." Then, I expect to Togneri's delight, announcing "he won't be in charge of access-to-information files anymore." There has been plenty more in the news in Canada about this since, with claims it was an isolated incident and the Prime Minister's Office restating ministers staff should not interfere in such things.

The point in drawing attention to this Canadian story is that in three Australian state jurisdictions this sort of conduct could see the Tognieris of this world in serious hot water. New FOI laws in  Queensland (commenced)  NSW and Tasmania (yet to commence) include offence provisions for the first time. They're laws you hope never need to be used but their presence on the statute book would have to have a salutary effect. Togneris in Canberra however needn't be alarmed-there is nothing of this sort in the Commonwealth Freedom of Information Act,  and no glimmer of interest in going down this path, as evidenced by the Government's FOI Reform Bill, now before Parliament.The states' move is an example of an emerging Australian standard ignored by the Commonwealth Government in its reforms.

Minister's mistake raises broader issue of parliament and transparency.

Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon is in the spotlight now over his failure to declare on the Register of Interests that two trips to China years ago were paid for by a long-time friend and well-connected Chinese born Australian businesswoman/property developer who has made substantial donations to the ALP.

The Register of Interests contains information of financial interests, stocks and shares held, gifts received over a certain value, and memberships of Clubs and Associations for Senators and Representatives.It's available for public inspection at Parliament House during business hours if you happen to be in Canberra.

We know courtesy of Open Australia that the Register consists of 1500 pages often handwritten, and is only available now on the web page they have put up for each member and senator because a volunteer Stephen Thorne at Netbox Blue scanned the lot.There is a caveat on what is on the web that it is not supported or maintained by Parliament and may not be up to date.

It's a great volunteer effort but how to explain Parliament never saw the need for this level of transparency or the need to provide not just the register but search capability (not possible in the format provided to Open Australia) that would enable us to readily ascertain where declared interests and gifts cross and connect?

The issue of access to information about members and senators cropped up at the Free Speech Conference on Tuesday. Minister Faulkner (transcript) responded to a question about parliamentarians from Michael McKinnon:

"The Government does not propose to include MPs within the scope of the FOI Act. This act is about providing access to documents of the executive, and I have announced today very significant far reaching reform in relation to that."

He went on to say, correctly, that some information about parliamentarians and their use of our money is held by the Department of Finance and Deregulation. It's far short of the full picture.

I asked the Minister about web availability of reports on travel by members of parliament and by chance about that Register of Interests. Here is the minister's response:

"..I do accept also the principle that transparency is important in these areas. I have long argued as persuasively as I can within government and within the Parliament, that certainly in the area of the administration of parliamentary entitlements, more transparency leads to better practice. And I have made any number of statements to that effect. It leads to more accountability and better practice. So I support the princ… not only do I support the principle, I hope you've seen some very tangible indications that I'm putting that into practice wearing my hat as Special Minister of State. You do mention the issue of the Register of Pecuniary Interests. The point may well be well made in relation to it not being available on the web. I'm very loath to trample into areas that are the responsibility of both the Department of the House of Representatives and the Department of the Senate, as you would appreciate. The points are well made, and I can certainly pass that on to my colleagues, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate."

I'm not holding my breath on the last point. But the question remains why the Government decided not to act on the 1995 Australian Law Reform Commission recommendation (Open Government Report 77 Recommendation 73) that the parliamentary departments be brought within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act.That's the situation in the UK- the Government having retired hurt from a recent proposal to change this- and the Canadian Information Commissioner (Recommendation 7) has just made a recommendation to this effect because

" Canadians expect all publicly funded bodies to be publicly accountable under access to information legislation. Therefore, it is recommended that the administrative records of the Senate, the House of Commons, the Library of Parliament ....be covered by the Act, subject to provisions protecting Parliamentary..privileges"

Australians are likely to share the sentiment, not just concerning the Federal parliament but in respect of each state and territory parliament as well.

Canada and Australia share cultural heritage.

There are parallels in many fields between Australia and Canada.This wisdom from Professor Michel Drapeau of the University of Ottawa, writing in Open Government Volume 5, No 1 (2009) about the implementation of the Access to Information Act at the Federal Government level has a familiar ring for Australians:

"The most obvious lesson learned is that the mere existence of an access statute does not, in and of itself, guarantee access to information. Unless there is a firm, manifest and unequivocal political will to make the statute work; a dutiful commitment on the part of the highest echelons of the Public Service to show respect for this quasi-constitutional right of the citizenry; and, an Ombudsman with both the powers and the capacity to police and discipline the process by investigating complaints on the part of the users in a timely fashion, the access system will not work."

Professor Drapeau says the three pre-conditions are absent in Canada today and these and other factors including a two year delay in investigation of complaints by the Information Commisioner highlight the enduring problem of public service culture:

"There is no panacea in making open and accountable government a reality. Given the existence of a deep-rooted culture of secrecy within the Canadian Public Service, what is required and hoped for by the Canadian democracy, particularly in the wake of the Gomery Inquiry, is not only more transparency but a shift in culture to bring about the essential change in attitude from the civil service on the related issues of record-keeping, archiving and disclosing of government information as well as adherence with the existing principles and spirit of the Access to Information Act."

As our government ponders an election commitment to create one,Professor Drapeau offers some timely advice about the qualities needed in an information commmissioner:

"One thing is certain, however, a cultural change of this magnitude does not happen overnight in government institutions unless changes are led from the very top. And, leading the charge for such a cultural change must be Parliament’s appointed Champion of Access, the Information Commissioner. Regrettably, however, at present that position appears untenanted.In his new job,( the Commissioner) Mr. Marleau is, quite naturally, relying on the very qualities and characteristics that gave him long and successful tenure as the Clerk of the House of Commons. But, history has shown that the Information Commissioner requires a different skill set. The Office of the Information Commissioner requires someone who is unafraid to stand up to the mandarins and, where required, someone who has the fortitude to take a position critical of his elected masters. That is the very nature of the job."

As you'll see, slowly getting back into gear here.

The silly season, as usual lived up to its name. The following has been doing the rounds on the blogosphere for years, and the claim it resulted from a Freedom of Information application may or may not be true, but it's a good one to kick off the new year.

This transcript of an actual radio conversation between a United States Navy aircraft carrier (U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln) and Canadian authorities off the coast off Newfoundland in October 1995 was released by the Chief of Naval Operations on 10/10/95 under the Freedom of Information Act.

CANADIANS:
Please divert your course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.

AMERICANS:
Recommend you divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a collision.

CANADIANS:
Negative. You will have to divert your course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.

AMERICANS:
This is the Captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course.

CANADIANS:
No, I say again, you divert YOUR course.

AMERICANS:
This is the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln. The second largest ship in the United States Atlantic fleet. We are accompanied by three destroyers, three cruisers, and numerous support vessels. I demand that you change your course15 degrees north...
I say again...That's one-five degrees north.... or counter-measures will be undertaken to ensure the safety of this ship!

CANADIANS:
We are a lighthouse. Your call.

Update: truth mirrors fiction or vice-versa. Thanks to the regular reader who spotted this live and in colour version on YouTube

FOI simple for ABC

Matthew Moore in the Sydney Morning Herald last Saturday commented on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's exemption from the Freedom of Information Act in relation to program material, and the generous interpretation of the provision to deny access to an application for correspondence with Malcolm Turnbull about a profile screened on him.

The ABC was successful in the Federal Court two years ago in convincing the Court to take a broader view of the meaning of the exemption than the protection of ABC's commercial interests, apparently what was originally intended. Here is a post about that case from August 2006 and the decision that "with respect to documents in relation to its program material" covered anything that had a direct or indirect relationship to program material.

The Corporation's latest Annual Report (Appendix 18, page 201) records that only nine FOI applications were received in the year to 30 June. But eight were refused entirely, and one resulted in partial release of requested documents. I haven't checked but I'd be surprised if any agency subject to the Act could beat that rejection rate. Maybe the program material exemption proved to be handy in all or some of these cases-the report doesn't elaborate on what exemptions were claimed.

All a far cry from Canada this week where the ABC's counterpart CBC is crying foul over "distorted attacks" through 150 FOI applications this year, most from two media organisations, leading to a spate of stories based on released documents about travel, hospitality and corporate expenses. Apparently no generous exemptions of any kind have been of much help in dealing with those kind of requests.

Alberta businesses take a shine to FOI

From the Edmonton Sun:

According to Privacy Commissioner Frank Work "Alberta businesses have the lion’s share of requests (for information through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act) at 52% while the media is the smallest user at about 2%, (and) private individuals accounted for 30%.The remaining requests came from researchers and organizations such as political parties. Service Alberta Minister Heather Klimchuk credits the province’s transparency for the low number of media requests."

Another reason (nudge, nudge to Australian authorities) may be helpful publication practices:

"The province posts online the following information: flight manifests for government aircraft, minister’s office expenses, all government payments made to third parties, environmental studies and inspection reports for all supportive living facilities."

Business in Australia, generally speaking, has been a voice rarely heard in debate on access to government information issues, and in contrast to the business community in Alberta, seems to regard FOI as some sort of enemy rather than a friend.

Former Privacy Commissioner in the spotlight

Some in Australia involved in privacy issues may have encountered Geoge Radwanski when he was Canadian Privacy Commissioner from 2001 until forced to step down in 2003 after a parliamentary inquiry. Radwanski and his former deputy Arthur Lamarche are now in court in Ottawa charged with fraud and breach of trust. Radwanski allegedly received a loan of $35000 from Lamarche which was not declared in his declaration of financial interests, contrary to the code that applies to Federal public servants, submitted thousands of dollars in expense claims for entertaining Lamarche and other staff members, and drew $16000 in holiday pay that he had not yet earned.

Needless to say, Radwanski is not enjoying much privacy at the moment.

Canada developments resonate with visitor from Australia

I'm travelling in the US and Canada at present, for the last few days in Ottawa.

 Today's Ottawa Citizen has two items of interest and relevance to our own access to information situation in Australia.

The editorial "Daring to dine out" comments on the fact that local councils in Ontario do not have the resources to inspect restaurants for compliance with health standards,which require three inspections a year for those in the high risk category. But Ottawa's council is to make inspection reports available online "so that the dining public can access the results quickly", bringing Ottawa into line with emerging international best practice. No Australian state, territory or local government jurisdiction has been prepared to go there so far.

 The paper also reports on the results of a three year inspection by the Information Commissioner into whether government agencies had "secret rules" for processing Freedom of Information applications from media organisations, leadingto delays in disclosure of documents. The Commissioner couldn't find evidence of secret rules but found plenty of instances of unfair and unjustifiable delays where "special handling" labels were attached to applications. This is an area that warrants attention from the NSW Ombudsman and others who are looking at what goes on in our own systems.

BYO gloves

In an article about US Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff and his recent comments in Canada, that fingerprints aren't personal information, Al Kamen in the Washington Post is taking the micky-isn't he?

"As Chertoff, who after all was recently a federal appeals judge, knows quite well, no one should expect privacy in a restaurant or anywhere else where a fingerprint might be left. And we don't. That's why many diners here are beginning to use gloves when they eat at restaurants and some even wear those hospital booties. Others prefer just a discreet swipe of utensils and glassware with a Wet-Nap to ensure against DNA retrieval from saliva. (There is a growing -- and deplorable -- trend to bring personal cutlery, but that really seems excessive and, in finer establishments, downright disrespectful, especially if it's plastic). Is it possible the Canadians thought those signs at beachfront eateries -- "No shirt, no shoes, no service" -- were an effort to maintain appropriate attire? Everyone down here knows the restaurants just wanted to prevent the feds from trying to collect toe prints.

Canadians probably still go to barbershops -- where a single hair in the right hands can provide DNA, general health info, recent drug use data and other information. Our cousins probably haven't read about the growing in-home trim movement here.

And there's an easy way to guard against theft of your secret mattress Sleep Number. Just change the setting every morning before you leave."

Swifter,higher,stronger indeed

What is it about the Olympics and secrecy?

When the Games were held in Sydney in 2000, the NSW Government,presumably at the urging of the IOC, enacted an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act that provided that any information held by the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, and other government agencies created to run the Games that was confidential to the International Olympic Committee (no matter what is was, or when it was sought), was exempt from disclosure.The only test was whether the information was confidential to the IOC. It' still there(Clause 21, Schedule1), available for use in any rare matter that might crop up eight years after the Games.

A provision in similar terms was later added to protect information about the World Masters Games to be held in Sydney in 2009.

There seemed no justification for these additional exemptions, then or now.

In Canada, host of the next Winter Olympics, another inventive response to the issue of transparency (and presumably about the use of public funds or assets),emerged last week when it was revealed that the agency concerned there has decided to keep no written record of meetings.

As for the Beijing Organising Committee.......................

Modest progress on lobbyists register

Special Minister of State Senator John Faulkner has released a draft code of conduct on lobbying that incorporates a public register of names and the interests they represent.

While the proposed scheme is a step forward, it's classic 'light touch' regulation and won't go far in assisting the public to know what goes on as influence peddlers go about their business.

The scheme, summarised in the Canberra Times today, only requires registration by those acting on behalf of a client, and will tell us nothing about those employed 'in house' whose job is to seek to influence government policy or decisions, or about industry organisations, charities and NGOs who are also heavily involved in these activities. It is based on the Western Australian model (gasp!). The Australian Financial Review says lobbyists registered there describe the scheme as well intended but not onerous.

Something more robust would involve disclosure of the names of all those paid to lobby, and regular information about who they contact and why; a prohibition on political donations by them; and some strong independent enforcement mechanisms. Canada leads on this issue and on others associated with integrity in public life, for example political donations. There, former ministers are banned from lobbying on matters dealt with while in office for five years - Faulkner's proposal is 18 months, and a year for senior public servants.

Regulation of lobbyists will always be difficult, and probably full of loopholes for those paid to know a loophole when they see one. The draft proposals are a modest start to a complex but important public policy issue.

Proposed political donation reform hardly best practice

It's well and good that Special Minister of State John Faulkner has announced plans to introduce legislation to fix some aspects of the loopholes in laws relating to political donations and public funding, but it's hardly a big deal that disclosures will be required every six months rather than once a year. The Canberra Times reports Senator Faulkner:

"hailed the doubled frequency of the reporting of donations, saying they would likely be made public only eight weeks after each six-month period. Previous the 12 month reporting period had been extended up to 19 months. "This is very, very different and very, very significant," he said".

Different it may be, but why shouldn't we expect something even closer to real time reporting and public disclosure. There are many examples around the world where more stringent requirements are in place. Here is one example from Ontario Canada:

Reports of contributions in excess of $100 and contributions from a single source that in the aggregate exceed $100 must be reported to the Chief Electoral Officer within 10 business days after the contribution is deposited. The Chief Electoral Officer must publish the information on the web within 10 business days of receiving the report.

So why six months for a report and eight weeks for publication here?

Crikey is right to also ask what's happened to the long promised register of lobbyists.

"Fixing up the accountability of political financing ins't much use if vested interests can walk into Parliament House and lobby MPs in secret".

Canadian turtles saved, public servant axed but rewarded

We aren't the only ones with unsatisfactory whistleblower protection legislation, but here's a good news story (sort of) from Vancouver Canada.

The Freedom of Information and Privacy Association and the Campaign for Open Government has given its 2007 Whistleblower Award to Gord McAdams, a former employee of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, who on his last day before retirement after 34 years service, lodged documents in a court proceeding that exposed his then minister as having made an unauthorised exercise of statutory power. It turned the case against the government and
needless to say he was fired on the spot. He eventually reached an out of court settlement which appears to have saved his super.

He also saved a population of painted turtles that would have been wiped out if the minister's approved plan had gone ahead.

In Australia, Federal public servants commit a criminal offence if any fact or document acquired in the course of duty is disclosed without authorisation (Section 70(1) Crimes Act 1914). Allan Kessing, a former officer of the Australian Customs Service, in March 2007, was convicted of an offence for disclosing the contents of documents containing threat assessments and risk analyses of airport security in 2003. Kessing was sentenced to 9 months jail, suspended on entering a good behaviour bond, claims he did not disclose the documents, and intends to appeal.

The recent Independent Audit of Free Speech in Australia identified 335 pieces of legislation which contain secrecy provisions that prevent disclosure of government information. Go figure.

Federal Labor is committed to reform so here's hoping.......

Canadian Privacy Commissioner on notification of privacy breaches

Short posts, on holidays.

Like Senator Stott Despoja (see post below), the Canadian Privacy Commissioner is pressing for statutory changes that would mandate notification to those effected by a breach of data security principles, but in the meantime the Commissioner has issued voluntary guidelines on the subject, including criteria for notification and a checklist of issues to be considered.

The Australian Federal Privacy Commissioner favours a notification requirement, but this issue is probably not going anywhere before the Australian Law Reform Commission reports next year.

Privacy in the work loo for Victorians

Victoria's Surveillance Devices (Workplace Privacy) Act came into force on 1 July. The Act imposes criminal penalties for employers who put surveillance devices in workplace toilets and change rooms.

As we commented recently in connection with the NSW Government's response to a Law Reform Commission report, governments here don't seem too concerned about the broader and growing issue of surveillance in public places, or of people outside the workplace.

My guess is that we still have plenty of surveillance related privacy problems. Just like others, for example this report about the use of video surveillance in a methadone clinic in Canada that resulted in an image of a woman giving a urine sample being picked up by a camera device in a nearby car.

Thanks to an alert reader for the Canadian link.

Familiar refrains on FOI

A flurry of information commissioner annual reports have hit the news overseas in the last couple of days.

Canada's Federal Information Commission gave a fail grade to the Prime Minister's Department, the Canadian mounties, the Justice Department, Health Canada and Transport Canada, for dragging their feet on freedom of information requests. Apart from these failures the Commissioner also says

"Too often access is denied to hide wrong doing, or to protect officials or governments from embarrassment rather than to serve a legitimate confidentiality requirement".

Still in Canada, the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner echoes these thoughts but she is sounding a message:

"After 20 years of experience with the Freedom of Information legislation the learning curve is over and bureaucrats should be farther ahead" she said after releasing her report. "Surely the time for secrecy and withholding information should have come to an end by now. When people come to the Government for information, too many bureaucrats are looking for excuses not to release it, instead of following the spirit of the legislation".

Meanwhile in Ireland the Information Commissioner in her report has again criticised the blanket exclusions of agencies such as the police from freedom of information legislation.

Some of the themes (but not the complete exclusion of police services) have resonance here.