Names, signatures and initials of public servants-what's the FOI story?

Names of public servants carrying out usual functions- in the usual case not exempt.

Signatures of public servants-in the usual case exempt: unreasonable disclosure of personal information and on balance contrary to the public interest.

Initials of public servants and police officers?

Although it wasn't a major issue in the matter Acting Australian Information Commissioner Timothy Pilgrim in ‘HJ’ and Australian Federal Police [2015] AICmr 71 (6 November 2015) rejected argument that disclosure of the initials of officers appearing in a document would be unreasonable. The AFP argued the potential for identity fraud or forgery, and the fact that the author of the initials did not expect the material to be released under the FOI Act.

30. The question of whether signatures of public servants are exempt under s 47F is an increasingly common theme in IC reviews. The Guidelines note at [6.140]:

Where public servants’ personal information is included in a document because of their usual duties or responsibilities, it would not be unreasonable to disclose unless special circumstances existed. This is because the information would reveal only that the public servant was performing their public duties. Such information may often also be publicly available, such as on an agency website.

31. The AFP submitted that the release of staff signatures would increase the risk of identity theft or the falsification of instruments, given the powers held by AFP officers. It was also submitted that the relevant document was for internal use and because it was a professional standards form, the person would not have an expectation that their initials could be publicly released.
32. Accepting these general submissions as to possible fraudulent use of the information would equate to me being satisfied that special circumstances exist only because the author of the initials is or was a member of the AFP.
33. I have found that virtually all of the content of the relevant document is exempt and find no reason that would support the disclosure of the initials as unreasonable. I am not persuaded of the potential for identity fraud or forgery from the release of the initials.
34. In my view, to accept the submission that the author of the initials did not expect the material to be released under the FOI Act and therefore release of the personal information would be unreasonable would be contrary to the objects of the FOI Act.
35. Consistent with the decision in Stephen Waller and Department of Environment [2014] AICmr 133, and absent evidence of any special circumstances, I find that it would not be unreasonable to disclose the initials and the material is not exempt under s 47F. 

(Update: a reader has reminded me of this widespread practice across the public service in acknowledging receipt of an FOI application:
"It is the usual practice of the Department to not release the names and contact details of junior officers of the Department and other government agencies, where that personal information is contained in documents within scope of a request.  The names and contact details of senior officers will generally be released.  We will take it that you agree to the removal of junior officers’ personal information unless you advise that you would like us to consider releasing that information as part of the documents you have requested."

While it is somewhat cute, in the usual case I doubt this is of concern to the applicant. 

But it is more than cute when the 'junior officer' is senior enough to have carriage of a particular matter. In an FOI application eons ago about the snail like progress on Australian membership of the Open Government Partnership the Attorney General's Department deleted the names of 12 of 15 officials attending an interdepartmental meeting on the subject.

As I said at the time if they are senior enough to represent the department some accountabilty goes with the territory. 

Previous posts on this issue are here and here 

Australian Information commissioners: names should be put to faceless public servants

Only Silence-Wikimedia Commons

Decisions by the Australian information commissioners should bring to a halt the widespread agency practice of deleting as irrelevant (s 22) names of public servants below Senior Executive Service rank contained in documents to be released in response to a Freedom of Information application; and deletion of the name regardless of rank on the basis of the personal privacy exemption (S 47F) where it identifies an officer simply carrying out public duties. 

Then again as public servants observe the government's two pronged ongoing attempt to force closure of the office and return the FOI guidance function to the Attorney General's Department, I wouldn't bank on it.

In April in ‘FM’ and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade [2015] AICmr 31, an attempt on behalf of David Hicks to obtain documents relating to an aspect of his confinement at Guantanamo, Australian Information Commissioner Professor John McMillan said [14]:

There is no apparent logical basis for treating the names of SES officials as being within the scope of a request but of other officials as being irrelevant to the request. Nor, as I have noted in the Guidelines (6.138-141) will the disclosure of the name of an official performing their public duties usually be regarded as an unreasonable disclosure of personal information under s 47F.

In GF’ and Department of the Treasury [2015] AICmr 47(7 July 2015) Privacy Commissioner Pilgrim recounts that Treasury decided to treat the names, email addresses and other contact details of public service officers as irrelevant to the request,informing the applicant[10]:

"We will provide you with the designations (for example, Analyst, Senior Adviser, Manager) of authors and addressees of documents in the schedule of documents accompanying the decision letter so that their relative seniority is known.

Commissioner Pilgrim said

12. In my view, there is nothing in the request that indicates the applicant considers the names and contact information of public service officers irrelevant to the request. Rather, it appears that the Department simply decided that it will release the designation of officers, but not their names and contact details. 

He went on to cite the FM decision.

Treasury in addition claimed as exempt on personal privacy grounds the name of the Australian Government Solicitor Special Counsel Litigation. Commissioner Pilgrim said

35. ..the Department have not submitted any specific reason why it would be unreasonable to disclose this information. Further, the AGS website provides key information, including photographs and telephone numbers for a number of its Special Counsel and other officers. Consistent with the Australian Information Commissioner’s views expressed in ‘FM’ and which I discussed above at [12], and the absence of any specific submissions from the Department giving reasons why disclosure of the Special Counsel’s name would be unreasonable, I am satisfied that the Department has not met its onus under s 55D of the FOI Act of establishing that document 2 is exempt under s 47F.

As mentioned in this gripe last year the usual practice in many agencies is to advise the applicant before processing the application that the names of non SES officers in documents will be treated as irrelevant, and seek the applicant's agreement. Usually most applicants will shrug at this point and say yes in the often forlorn hope this will reduce bones of contention. I cited personal experience where the government's preferred guidance setters on FOI, the Attorney General's Department, deleted names with absurd results that those who have carriage of important public policy matters are protected from disclosure for no reason at all.

In the usual case the names of public servants carrying out public duties should be disclosed when sought although intimidation, harassment or threat to life and safety understandably change the situation. 

If we need legislative change to get the message through, the Western Australian Freedom of Information Act (Schedule 1 Clause 3) provides a starting point:

The act provides specifically that matter is not exempt for the purposes of the personal information exemption merely because its disclosure would reveal, in relation to a current or past  officer of an agency, prescribed details relating to the person; the person’s position or functions as an officer; or things done by the person in the course of performing functions as an officer. 

Prescribed information (Freedom of Information Regulations Clause 9) includes details of the person’s name; any qualifications held by the person relevant to the person’s position in the agency; the position held by the person in the agency; the functions and duties of the person, as described in any job description document for the position held by the person; or anything done by the person in the course of performing or purporting to perform the person’s functions or duties as an officer as described in any job description document for the position held by the person.

Estimates a missed opportunity to quiz public service leader on 'FOI very pernicious' remark

Senate Estimates run for hours, days, weeks with some penetrating questions and plenty of banal ones as well. Unfortunately important questions often get crowded out or for other reasons never get asked.

For example Estimates for Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet last week included one hour of questioning (Transcript 122-134) of Australian Public Service Commissioner John Lloyd.

Senator Ludwig showed particular interest in the commissioner's speeches.

The commissioner said he had given many speeches since assuming office but didn't think any had been posted on the web as he tended to speak off the cuff.

When Senator Ludwig asked 

"Were the comments that were made to the public servants at the National Portrait Gallery on 11 March an off-the-cuff speech?" 

I thought, terrific, the senator is onto Mr Lloyd about his reported remark on that occasion that Freedom of Information laws are "very pernicious," to which he added

"I think they have gone beyond perhaps what they intended to do and I think they do make us a bit over cautious and make some of the advice more circumspect than it should be, and I hope the government will address that and perhaps reassess the extent of some of those FOI laws.”

At the time Senator Ludwig said

"It's unbelievable that the head of the Commonwealth public service would call the FOI laws 'pernicious' – he either has no understanding of the importance of FOI laws in a modern and transparent democracy or he is trying to undermine the legislation with his comments."..
"FOI laws simply provide a window into the decisions and process of government. If the Public Service Commissioner has confidence in the professionalism and integrity of public service staff, then he has nothing to fear from FOI laws."

Mr Lloyd responded to the question explaining it "was a speech where I had notes and I spoke. I was asked questions at the end of the speech and I responded to questions. It was a typical session. I think it was an IPAA speech. The Institute of Public Administration of Australia was the organiser of the speech."

Go Senator Ludwig, I'm thinking, follow on with
Were your remarks about FOI laws accurately reported? 
What did you mean by "very pernicious?" 
What was the basis for the claim?
In what way has the law gone beyond what was intended?
Have you raised the issue with Minister for the Public Service Abetz?"
What action do you suggest is needed?
Have your views changed since you took up your position after working at the Institute of Public Affairs where your then colleague now Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson made 750 FOI applications to one agency in a four month period including 440 on one day? 
(I could go on......)

Alas, not even close.

No questions for the commissioner from Senator Ludwig or anyone else moved beyond the two topics the senator pursued, Lloyd's remarks regarding 'hangover' day sickies, and leaks about military pay offers.

Until corrected 'tone at the top' set by the commissioner on integrity and transparency is that FOI is "very pernicious," that is "extremely harmful, damaging, detrimental, deleterious."

On the other hand public servants carrying out routine work functions should be publicly accountable

Public servants, like the rest of us have a right to privacy and protection of personal information. But when it comes performance of functions in the normal course of duties of office, privacy should rarely enter into it. Sensitivity about names should usually take a back seat  to transparency, responsibility and accountability.

The issue arises in the context of freedom of information applications. In some agencies, notably the Attorney General's Department the practice is that names and contact details of senior officers mentioned in requested documents will generally be released but not the names of 'junior' officers of the department and other government agencies. 'Junior' appears to be anyone below SES level.

This is the paragraph that appears in the AGD standard acknowledgement of receipt of an FOI application:

It is the usual practice of the Department to not release the names and contact details of junior officers of the Department and other government agencies, where that personal information is contained in documents within scope of a request.We will take it that you agree to the removal of junior officers’ personal information unless you advise that you would like us to consider releasing that information as part of the documents you have requested.

As the applicant doesn't know at this stage what a requested document contains or whose name might be mentioned, most probably simply shrug 'OK.' AGD then redact the details under s 22 as not relevant to the application. 

Now no great public purpose usually will be served by disclosing names of public servants who simply perform administrative support functions or are peripheral to the main game.

However the assumption of non disclosure in all instances is a bit precious when the 'junior' officer concerned is the officer responsible for carriage of a particular matter.

Given AGD (through the Attorney General) is set to become the source of government wide guidance on the FOI act once the government persuades the Parliament to abolish the OAIC, you have to wonder whether 'privacy creep' might see the non disclosure of names become routine across the service possibly broadening out beyond 'junior officers.'

Take the following two AGD examples from personal experience. 

AGD deleted the name of whoever drafted this briefing note for the Secretary in August 2012 about the government response to the Australian Law Reform Commission report Secrecy Laws and Open Government. The briefing note was signed by then Assistant Secretary Glenn (the decision maker took the trouble to delete his phone number as well) and went through two named first assistant secretaries Matt Minogue and Geoff McDonald on the way to the then secretary. 'No name' obviously knew all about the ins and outs of the topic - that the agency best sit on the report rather than respond to its recommendations publicly - but is not mentioned.

And in response to this request for documents about meetings of agency officials regarding Australia and the Open Government Partnership, AGD deleted the names of 'junior officers' who attended a meeting but that happened to be everyone from four agencies represented, Ausaid, DBCDE, Finance, and PM&C. None of those attending from those agencies were  named in the document released. 

It is a Queensland case but this post three years ago canvassed the issue following a decision by Assistant Information Commissioner Henry (The Amanda Flynn Charity Ltd and the Crime and Misconduct Commission) who said:

22. The routine personal work information of public service officers is personal information within the meaning of the RTI Act, however, the potential harm that could be caused by its disclosure is, in most circumstances, minimal or nonexistent. This is due to a number of factors including:

• the requirement that government departments be open and accountable in their operations
• that public service officers are employed in the business of government which delivers services to the public and the public is generally entitled to know the identity of the service deliverers, advice givers and decision makers
• the publication of public service officers' appointments in the Government Gazette; and
• that a reasonable public service officer would expect that information that is solely their routine personal work information would be made available to the public.

In an earlier post (which needs a little updating to reflect Commonwealth reforms enacted since) I commented confidently:

...it's clear that generally names will not be exempt. (In the usual situation) the routine disclosure of information about the names, and positions of government employees in the conduct of public functions is now an important accepted element in the transparency and accountability framework within which government operates in Australia.

And referred to this example of one jurisdiction that leaves no doubt about the issue:

The Freedom of Information Act of Western Australia (Schedule 1 Clause 3) provides the clearest statement of the situation. The act provides specifically that matter is not exempt for the purposes of the personal information exemption merely because its disclosure would reveal, in relation to a current or past  officer of an agency, prescribed details relating to the person; the person’s position or functions as an officer; or things done by the person in the course of performing functions as an officer.  Prescribed information (Freedom of Information Regulations Clause 9) includes details of the person’s name; any qualifications held by the person relevant to the person’s position in the agency; the position held by the person in the agency; the functions and duties of the person, as described in any job description document for the position held by the person; or anything done by the person in the course of performing or purporting to perform the person’s functions or duties as an officer as described in any job description document for the position held by the person.

Intimidation, harassment or threat to life and safety understandably change the equation. 

But public servants who are key players in the policy process regardless of seniority should be made of sterner stuff than the FOI decision makers at AGD think is warranted.

Is alleged misconduct by a public official deserving of privacy protection?

I'd suggest the intuitive response from most of us is no, and some might firm this up with a 'never', or 'rarely'. 

But of course it all depends on a whole range of circumstances: who is involved and the nature of the alleged conduct; in those jurisdictions that have an anti corruption body whether the misconduct is of a kind requiring notification, otherwise the stage reached in any investigation; the impact disclosure may have on further investigation, etc, etc. If an investigation has concluded, is there a difference if it found misconduct occurred or didn't occur? Was the investigation thorough and appropriate, did it reveal systemic issues, etc, etc....

(This current UK case is slightly off subject but rather special: a disgraced Royal Navy captain is suing the Ministry of Defence because he says his human rights were breached when a military press officer leaked the story of how his verbal abuse of junior officers led him to be relieved of the command of the warship HMS Somerset. The press officer was also charged with misconduct in public office for selling stories to the press!) 

Federal public servants

So put to one side what might be said about the issue and elected officials - our federal parliamentarians don't have a code of conduct by the way..

The Australian Public Service Commission is seeking comment on a discussion paper about the extent to which information about the outcome of a misconduct complaint should be disclosed to the complainant and to others. Public servants are bound by the APS Code of Conduct, set out in section 13 of the Public Service Act 1999 (the PS Act), which codifies required standards of behaviour.

(You'll need to be quick with a submission - the paper seeks  comment by 7 October 2014 to the Ethics Advisory Service: ethics@apsc.gov.auor by post to: Ms Karin Fisher Australian Public Service Commission 16 Furzer Street Phillip, ACT 2606.)

Agencies tend towards non disclosure

Apparently a 2008 APSC guideline that outlines in broad terms the issues relevant to disclosure of information to the complainant and disclosure more generally isn't doing the job. The discussion paper notes

"recent cases, as well as enquiries to the Commission's Ethics Advisory Service, have highlighted a tendency across the APS to err on the side of non-disclosure—a tendency apparently underpinned by agencies' concern that providing more than the minimum of information could constitute a breach of the Privacy Act 1988. Agencies' hesitancy to provide information about the outcomes of misconduct complaints has left them vulnerable to criticism by the public and by the Courts, which risks undermining public confidence in the administration of the APS."

Questions posed in the paper:

• What information should be provided to people, including members of the public, who allege breaches of the APS Code of Conduct about the outcome of their complaints?
• Should information about proven misconduct be disclosed to people other than complainants, such as the wider agency workforce?
• If information should be disclosed to people other than the complainant, under what circumstances?
• What do agencies need to consider in making decisions about these matters?

 Privacy, FOI, PIDS?

The privacy framework that applies to APS agencies and employees "recognises that employees' personal information can sometimes be disclosed, and may need to be disclosed where doing so would serve the broader public interest." Provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1982  and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 may be relevant in particular instances.

Recent cases

The paper summarises recent cases that indicate "a greater degree of disclosure is acceptable to the community than the Commission's existing guidance suggests:

In Banerji v Bowles [2013] FCCA 1052 (dealing principally with public comment and the right to freedom of expression rather than the right to privacy) it was noted by the Court that the applicant had previously made a complaint against another employee in the agency, whose conduct was investigated as a result, and had been given a letter advising her that ‘appropriate action’ had been taken by the agency in relation to her complaint but that the Privacy Act prevented disclosure of any relevant details. In commenting on this matter, Neville J said:

the letter is (a) less than informative (or otherwise illuminating), and (b) classic ‘Yes Minister’ speak.

The judge questioned how a complainant might obtain any relevant information or raise any questions about a matter that involved serious misconduct if they were told that no relevant information could be provided, and noted that ‘such an information vacuum might understandably give rise to a certain angst or tension in the workplace, which is not necessarily of the complainant's making.’
Similarly, in ‘J’ and Department of Health and Ageing [2013] AICmr 21 (8 March 2013), which concerned a complainant's request for information about the outcome of an investigation, the Australian Information Commissioner stated:

[T]o the extent that … a disclosure demonstrates that an investigation has been properly undertaken, that disclosure will improve general confidence in an agency's capacity to conduct future investigations.

Importantly, the Information Commissioner also noted that the result of the complainant's freedom of information request might have been different if the agency had provided more information and more detail—‘not necessarily in written form’—in the first instance about the outcome of the investigation.
This case also referenced Carver and Fair Work Ombudsman [2011] AICmr 5, in which it was noted that wide disclosure of evidence provided to misconduct investigations

could reasonably be expected to affect the willingness of people to provide evidence for future Code of Conduct investigations which, in turn, would have a substantial adverse effect on the management … of the agency's personnel.

Royal Commissioner calls for reinvigorating 'frank and candid', secrecy not part of the formula

Among other findings about the Home Insulation Program, Royal Commissioner Hanger takes the government and public servants to task in his report tabled in Parliament yesterday.

Of particular interest are the commissioner's observations about public service advice (Chapter 14) in light of the decisions about the need for confidentiality in the advice process by the Australian Information Commissioner, and agency FOI knock backs I have seen since arguing refusal of access is necessary if public servants are to retain the trust of ministers and in order to ensure frank, comprehensive advice is forthcoming in future:

• senior managers failed to provide candid advice to Ministers including briefings to Minister Garrett (14.3.2);

• if "frank, honest, comprehensive, accurate and timely advice of the kind referred to in section 10(1)(f) of the Public Service Act had been given at key junctures", there is little doubt the tragedies that occurred would have been avoided (14.3.4);

• in a section on frank and fearless advice in the context of the public service today (14.6) a call for the Australian Public Service "to reinvigorate its willingness to provide in writing advice that is as frank and robust as the advice it is willing to give verbally. This requires cultural change of two kinds:14.6.6.1-senior officials and Ministers being aware they are entitled to act contrary to advice. The fact they received advice contrary to the way in which they act is no necessary or automatic basis to impugn the decision. 14.6.6.2- public servants giving advice must be encouraged to think clearly, to free themselves as much as possible from institutional biases and taboos and to have courage when giving advice."

The Commissioner goes on to suggest the need for more 'Black Hat' thinking in advice work, emphasises the importance of multifaceted advice, and observes that it was a shame that those entrusted with the implementation of the HIP did not adhere to Australian Public Service Commission practical guidance on values and code of conduct (14.6.9-14.6.11).

While there is nothing in the report that supports the line of current thinking in some Canberra circles that advice must be protected under FOI from the glare of the public spotlight even after the thinking/deciding stage has passed, that potential FOI disclosure poses a threat to frank and candid, and that stronger FOI protections are required if public servants are to do their job properly, I'm sure those who argue this case will try to use this case study to effect somehow.

The Commissioner (1.3) also comments on issues concerning the conduct of the inquiry, none of which are flattering to the government or the public service: 

• over reach on public interest immunity claims that were advanced in a slow and cumbersome manner ; 

• gaps in his powers for example to compel the production of a statement by a potential witness (despite a recommendation never acted upon, from the ALRC four years ago), and constraints on current and past public servants arising from section 70 of the Crimes Act (the ALRC recommended five years ago repeal of the current draconian 'unauthorised disclosure' provision and a replacement based on identifiable harm - that also hasn't been heard of since);

• conduct by the Commonwealth and public servants that hampered his work including a failure initially to locate a large number (tens of thousands) of emails; that 'current public servants were not entirely forthcoming with the Commission as none volunteered any information, many had no recollection of important events and none was prepared to contradict another; that with very few exceptions public servant witnesses chose not to make submissions and "extraordinarily" the Commonwealth chose not to make submissions when invited to do so. 

• the Commonwealth did not suggest one witness that should be called and produced documents piecemeal and haphazardly in 147 tranches. In commenting on the inadequacies of the government document management system the Commissioner notes that mysteriously 100,000 documents were produced towards the end of public hearings that were said to "not form part of the established filing system."

Senator Eric Abetz is the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service. 
Look forward to his wisdom in due course.

Mr Grech makes a full recovery and draws on expertise

Godwin Grech's observations today on good public administration, "competent apolitical public service professionals" and the importance of "creating a more transparent and accountable public sector" make no reference to his own form in the field. And he seems to be in better health these days. The last time I heard anything of Mr Grech was a media release from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions dated 19 November 2010, and reproduced below (emphasis added) announcing a decision not to proceed to prosecution.

(Readers will recall that others such as Allan Kessing, an outstanding public interested former public servant did not attract the exercise of this discretion not to prosecute. Nothing has been heard for years about his application for a pardon, under consideration since October 2009, and presumably still somewhere in the in-tray of Attorney General Roxon.)

I'm no fan of s 70 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act (neither is the Australian Law Reform Commission which recommended repeal in the current form in 2009)  but on any scale of seriousness the Grech creation of false email, subsequent false testimony to a parliamentary committee, and disclosures to the opposition-without a shred of public interest- was way up there.

What public servants think about open government, a question yet to be asked

The Australian Public Service Commission State of the Service Report referred to in a recent post on whistleblower protection was published in November 2011 together with  results of an employee survey . The report details the activities and human resource management practices of APS agencies. But the survey again was a missed opportunity to gather data about awareness of open government reforms and respect for privacy that would throw some light on prevailing culture and assist to track change over time. Nothing has changed since last year in this respect.


Question 70 for example asked about familiarity with the Standards of Ministerial Ethics, the Register of Lobbyists, and the Lobbying Code of Conduct-around 50% in each case of a large sample of public servants had not heard of these, or were not sure. But no-one was asked about familiarity with the Open Government Declaration, with freedom of information reforms of 2009-2010 or asked to respond to any questions designed to guage general attitudes concerning open government, or appreciation of the law regarding respect for information privacy and what that entails.


Responses to questions such as these would be a modest but useful start to testing culture. After all culture change has been one of the prime objects the government says it is on about in moving towards greater transparency. 


The only jurisdiction that has attempted a to gather base-line data is Queensland where a survey was undertaken on behalf of the Queensland Information Commissioner last year. 


Results of that survey showed the reaction to questions by a large number of Queensland public servants was "what reforms?" but at least those in the know thought important changes were underway and were having a positive effect. We know little about the views of Commonwealth public servants although those who signed off on submissions to the fees and charges review hardly exhibited an enthusiastic embrace of the new regime.

NSW public sector not a pretty picture

Open transparent government and specific observations about the administration of the laws, and policies, procedures and the agency culture needed to deliver it do not feature in the NSW Commission of Audit- Interim Report on Public Management released yesterday. Although the commission did find that "(i)nformation systems are complex and cumbersome and often non-existent" and identified "a culture of risk aversion, insularity, adherence to procedure and powerlessness, even defeatism.." The SMH take is here.

It's noteworthy that the report was released bearing the "Cabinet in Confidence" tag at the foot of every page, so a big tick for the Premier and Treasurer on that score, in marked contrast to the hands off approach taken with the initial (non) release of the incoming government briefs (Blue books) last year. 

The structural complexity as a result of agency amalgamations sounds like a nightmare for those with agency wide responsibilities such as information access and privacy. To which these extracts from the introduction and conclusion also apply.

No bar to disclosure of public servant's routine work information

Public access to information about work related matters concerning a public servant and the extent to which this raises exemption or grounds for refusal issues concerning disclosure of  personal information is always a freedom of information matter of interest-well, mainly to public servants of course.

These issues arose in a recent Queensland Right to Information Act review by Assistant Information Commissioner Henry (The Amanda Flynn Charity Ltd and the Crime and Misconduct Commission). The precise nature of the information in dispute is unclear other than it concerned a person's employment in the public sector. 

Assistant Information Commissioner Henry decided the information was not exempt  and disclosure would not be contrary to the public interest, drawing a distinction between routine and non routine personal work information:

State of Service report opaque about culture of transparency

The annual State of the Service report issued by the Australian Public Service Commission and the accompanying State of the Service Employee Survey  2009-2010 provide useful insights into attitudes and approaches of our public servants. Overall the Commission concludes "that APS performance compares well with that of its peers. Yet there is always room for improvement .." The Commission is to be commended for publishing these details. Some relevant issues addressed include:

The retiring Mr Mathews speaks up for speaking up

On the other hand in his valedictory speech last week, long time Commonwealth public servant Ken Mathews expressed pride in the Australian model of public administration, suggesting Ozminster rather than Westminster as the more apt description, and in the Australian Public Service "as a great, continuing national institution."

 Presentation (PDF - external website)

Mathews canvassed four issues that deserve thought by ministers and public service leaders and raised a more fundamental question: whether the public service is becoming a “docile and unassertive service” that  needs a better point of balance between accountability to ministers, and responsibility more broadly to speak truth to power in putting big picture national strategic views to ministers, by not throwing in the towel when advice once given is rejected, in dealings with Ministerial staffers, in showing a bit of spine under questioning in Senate Estimates hearings, in speaking up for the public service itself. And in participating in media and academic debate:

When we hear garbage or inaccuracies on current affairs radio over breakfast shouldn’t we be getting the facts out there? I also think we have a responsibility to be more active on the conference circuit, including alongside academics. Yes, we need to be mindful of the public profiles of our ministers, and yes we need to avoid partisan issues, but there is a lot our great APS institution can say that can be constructive and will advance the public debate. We do have a choice: we can sit back and complain about the standard of public policy debate or we can do something ourselves to improve it. To clarify what’s legitimate in public comment perhaps we need a ‘new deal’ with our ministerial executive, parliamentary committees and accountability bodies such as the ANAO... Our top executives have a special role in the public debate.

Spot on there, just like the important contribution made to public debate through release of Red Book and other pieces of policy analysis.

Oh and all public servants are welcome anytime to express a view about open government issues canvassed here. From memory I can't recall a comment from any prepared to provide a name, although I expect Anonymous, our No.1 contributor, has many incarnations, including more than a few as otherwise proud and confident public servants.

The retired but not retiring Mr Gleeson

Gerry Gleeson, one time head of the Premier's Department, holder of many other high public and private sector offices, and still highly influential, gave the NSW Government and the state public service both barrels in his Spann Oration and in a follow on interview on ABC Stateline on Friday. Apart from expressing shock and dismay about ministerial standards, Gleeson said

the NSW Public Service, once regarded as one of the leaders in Australia, has lost it coherence, its stability, its unity of purpose, and with tenure so tenuous has lost its capacity to be a genuine source of frank and fearless advice

He spoke about fear, greed and incompetence; nepotism, politicisation through favouritism and ministerial influence in selection processes; lack of capacity for strategic policy and review; failure to attend to professional development; no systematic service-wide approach to identifying and developing the highly talented; the Government and Opposition endeavouring to use ICAC, the Ombudsman and the Auditor General for their particular political agendas; the attitude within government that private sector practices are best, and that by definition outsourcing is more efficient than in-house delivery; few follow up reviews to report on whether projected efficiencies, economies and value for money have been achieved, particularly with private public partnerships; and finally the re-emergence of the Treasury at the top of the power and authority tree.

Sure doesn't sound anything like the world within which Premier Keneally operates. The Premier told Parliament recently that the state has"one of the most stable, integral and respected public sector workforces in the world."

Gleeson puts forward in the Spann Oration a list of changes for the system of government, ministers and the public service all of which warrant consideration.

Freedom of Information rated this mention:

The changes introduced by Greiner and Carr effected positive improvements within the public sector, such as the budget process and FOI, although the release of information has been strictly controlled by Ministers. Also ICAC is a body that is now an essential.

Gleeson wasn't always as well disposed towards FOI. A commitment to introduce FOI was part of the ALP platform before and during the 12 years of ALP Government commencing in 1976 when Gleeson served as head of the Premier's Department. The late Peter Wilenski in a review of public administration for Premier Wran described NSW at that time as the secret state.The story goes that every time Wran raised the subject of where this reform stood, the bottom drawer of Gleeson's filing cabinet creaked open for just a moment before slamming shut. Nothing happened until a new premier Greiner arrived in 1988 and Gleeson departed. Greiner also then introduced the ICAC because of the stench of corruption in and around the NSW government.

I can also recall Gleeson in the mid 1980's making a speech to the Institute of Public Administration claiming NSW led the country in accountability, decrying calls for among other things, more stringent inquiry into executive government activity by parliament through committees such as public accounts ( being pushed along at the time by the committee's then staff person, now Minister for Climate Change and Environment Frank Sartor) and resisting arguments for performance audit powers for the Auditor General. All the time with that "Introduction of FOI" file safely locked away in the bottom drawer.

FOI in the frame sometimes

Freedom of Information did rate a mention when 19 departmental secretaries had a chat in 2008 with the Remuneration Tribunal about the challenges of the job, as summarised in a report by John Egan released this week. As did managing illegal and inappropriate directions, and delivering programs which have a political purpose and are not in the national interest. The Age reports

The position today is one of high risk. Legal actions can often be personal, freedom-of-information requests are challenging, some ministers can be hostile in their relationship with the secretary,'' the report says. ''The secretary is often required to manage illegal or inappropriate ministerial direction and … new initiatives which have not been funded in the department's budget.'' Secretaries were ''absolutely accountable … when things go 'belly up', irrespective of the source of the error''. ''Ministers don't ''fall on their swords'' any more. The secretary is accountable for protecting the minister. Secretaries have to manage conflicts between the department and the minister and the minister and the government … in the delivery of programs which have a political purpose and are not in the national interest. This is an awkward area of management.''

Awkward indeed.The Egan report is part of the Office of Secretary Report.

Names of public officials carrying out public functions

For another purpose I've done a little research recently on the disclosure of the names of public officials when requests under Australian freedom of information laws seek access to documents that include information about the conduct of government functions. While the comments that follow don't include detailed examination of the situation in every jurisdiction, and much depends on the particular circumstances and the law that applies in each, it's clear that generally names will not be exempt. The routine disclosure of information about the names, and positions of government employees in the conduct of public functions is now an important accepted element in the transparency and accountability framework within which government operates in Australia.

The boundaries for policy advice

The post "Marginal seat impacts not a matter for public service advice" earlier in the week turned into this letter published in the Sydney Morning Herald today. The problem is public servants assessing political benefits or detriments for the Government of decisions on big ticket expenditure-or anything else for that matter.

Political advice is part of the problem

Draft advice prepared by a senior public servant told the Government the Tillegra Dam was in the wrong place and would not be needed for 30 years ("A dam or a smokescreen'', November 17). It also revealed the blurring of the important distinction between policy and political advice.

The briefing note included this observation: ''Newcastle is a marginal seat after the last election and many of the people I talk to would vote for an independent who opposed the dam. I can't see what political benefit there is to the Government in the dam.'' Marginal seat impacts and political benefit one way or another should not feature in professional policy advice.

NSW lacks a body to set, lead and encourage professional and ethical standards for the public service, and to protect public servants who act properly in accordance with those standards. The results are self-evident.

Peter Timmins Potts Point