The Guardian, 4 April 2019:
The Australian
government has attempted to retrospectively censor critical information related
to exports of rare and exotic birds to a German organisation headed by a
convicted kidnapper, fraudster and extortionist.
Guardian Australia revealed late last
year that
Australia had permitted the export of 232 birds, some worth tens of thousands
of dollars, to the Brandenburg-based Association for the Conservation of
Threatened Parrots (ACTP) between 2015 and November 2018.
Conservation groups and federal politicians
had repeatedly expressed concern about the group, which is headed by Martin
Guth, a man with multiple criminal convictions.
The Guardian’s
investigation relied on internal government documents secured through freedom
of information laws, released in August.
Guardian Australia made
subsequent freedom of information requests and received further documents in
January. But the federal department of environment has now attempted to
retrospectively redact parts of the documents, saying it accidentally released
information it shouldn’t have.
Some of the inadvertently
released information could “facilitate fraudulent export applications”, the
department said. The department had also accidentally released “personal
information, such as birth dates and name, and confidential business
information”.
The department has asked
Guardian Australia to destroy its copies of the documents, and not further
disseminate the newly redacted details.
“While we understand
that the FOI decisions have already been made, and that you are under no
obligation to follow the department’s wishes, we kindly request that you
either: destroy the documents that the department has previously released to
you and instead, use the redacted documents attached to this letter; or
otherwise ensure that the information in question … is not further disclosed or
made publicly available,” the department said in a letter emailed to the
Guardian on Wednesday, but dated last month.
The documents have not
been published on the department’s online FOI disclosure log. The department’s
stance suggests that other parties – journalists or conservation groups, for
example – would be subject to the newly introduced redactions if they requested
the same documents.
Freedom of information
experts say the government’s actions have “no legal basis”……
The new redactions remove
details that made it possible for Guardian Australia to establish that the
operator of ACTP’s Netherlands facility was convicted in 2015 of involvement as
a buyer in a trading ring that was illegally selling protected exotic birds.
The department has also
removed identification numbers for the birds that were exported to Germany, arguing that its original decision
to release that information could lead to “fraudulent” exports of Australian
birds overseas.
It has also blacked out
permit numbers from the export permits issued in Australia, the names of
individuals who operate other ACTP facilities in Germany and in other
countries, and removed information relating to ACTP’s exemption status from corporate
tax.
The redactions remove
images of ACTP’s main breeding facility and maps that illustrate its layout.
In recent months,
Guardian Australia has been trying to establish whether the department
undertook adequate due diligence to ensure that all of the birds sent to ACTP
were legally captive bred.
But the department has
refused to release names of suppliers in Australia that would show the chain of
custody for each of the birds before they were exported to Germany. Those
details were redacted from FoI documents released to the Guardian in January
and from documents tabled after an order for the production of documents in
parliament.
Attempts by government
agencies to retrospectively recover or redact FOI documents have previously
been found to have no lawful basis under NSW freedom of information law.
Landcom, the NSW government’s land and property development organisation,
attempted to retrieve documents it had accidentally released to a school
committee group in 2005, and took its case to the NSW
Administrative Decisions Tribunal.
The tribunal found it
had no power whatsoever to retrieve previously released FOI documents.
No comments:
Post a Comment