Most intriguing opening line in a blog post this week

As I explained in the Inforrm article that prompted Sir Alan Moses to invite me for a brief visit to his office before his terse invitation to depart it, the touchstone both of whether IPSO has any independence from the press industry and whether it will therefore be an effective regulator is on the issue of prominence. [Inforrm’s Blog, 1 May 2015]

The fate of one whistleblower whose evidence was presented to the Royal Commission into Institutional Child Sexual Abuse

Extract from Australian Newspaper History Group May 2015 newsletter:

82.1.1. Jewish newspaper and a whistleblower

The Australian Jewish News (AJN) has made a senior journalist redundant after he passed on information that helped a royal commission and led to the resignation of Australia’s most senior Rabbi (Australian, Media section, 2 March 2015). Adam Kamien, who had worked for AJN since 2006, became the only person in the newsroom to be made redundant following an internal investigation into how text messages ended up being used by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The text message, sent from the Rabbi Meir Kluwgant to the editor of the AJN, Zeddy Lawrence, and read out at the royal commission, described the father of an abuse victim as a “lunatic” who neglected his children. “Zephaniah is killing us. Zephaniah is attacking Chabad. He is a lunatic on the fringe, guilty of neglect of his own children. Where was he when all this was happening?” Under intense cross examination, Rabbi Kluwgant said he sent the message to Lawrence during the commission evidence of Zephaniah Waks, father of victim and whistleblower Manny Waks. Soon after admitting to the text, Rabbi Kluwgant resigned as president of the Organisation of Rabbis of Australasia.

Yeshiva College sex abuse victim Manny Waks told the Australian Kamien was a whistleblower who courageously ensured that justice was done. “In my view it’s clear that the journalist was effectively dismissed for disclosing to me a vital bit of evidence for submission to the royal commission,” he said. “Had the text message not been disclosed, Rabbi Kluwgant would probably still have his senior leadership positions and victims and their families would still be accused of exaggerating the intimidation. The journalist’s disclosure ensured the truth was told. It vindicated us fully.”

The AJN launched an internal investigation into how the text message found its way to the royal commission and Kamien was suspended on full pay pending the outcome of an investigation. A few days later the AJN confirmed it had concluded its investigation and would “take no further action in relation to the matter”. But on Friday, 27 February, group general manager Rod Kenning sent an email to staff saying that Kamien’s position as senior journalist had become redundant as part of a restructure of the editorial team.

A must read for every Clarence Valley resident and ratepayer

Clarence Valley Council has placed a Draft Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Policy on public exhibition on its website here.

Every resident and ratepayers should read this 16-page draft and accompanying documents because under its provisions the general manager and senior staff will get to decide that you should be considered an unreasonable complainant and denied a service or services if, amongst other things, they consider you to be putting a complaint to them that is based on incomprehensible, false or inflammatory, trivial or delirious argument or based on a conspiracy theory or one that even dares to suggest that you may be a victim of past procedural unfairness on council's part (pages 2 & 3 of the draft).

You may also be placing an unreasonable demand on local government if you commit the following sin: Insisting on talking to a senior manager, a Director or the General Manager personally  if said person considers such a conversation is not appropriate or warranted (page 2).

Oh, and by the way, the General Manager Scott Greensill and his staff don’t want you to seduce them either (page 2).

Excerpt from Ombudsman New South Wales publication Managing unreasonable complainant conduct practice manual (2nd edition), 7 May 2012:

If you read nothing else, read this page

The approach and the strategies suggested in this manual are based on the clear understanding that:

• They are equally relevant and applicable to all staff within an organisation including frontline staff, supervisors and senior managers.

• All complainants are treated with fairness and respect.

• In the absence of very good reasons to the contrary, all complainants have a right to access public services.

• All complaints are considered on their merits.

• Unreasonable complainant conduct does not preclude there being a valid issue.

• The substance of a complaint dictates the level of resources dedicated to it, not a complainant’s demands or behaviour.

• Anger is an understandable and, to some degree, an acceptable emotion among frustrated complainants as long as it is not expressed through aggression or violence.

• Staff safety and well-being are paramount when dealing with unreasonable complainant conduct.

• The decision to change or restrict a complainant’s access to services as a result of their behaviour, will only be made at a senior management level and in accordance with clearly defined policies and procedures. See Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Model Policy available at: www.ombo.nsw.gov.au.

• Senior managers will ensure relevant systems, policies and procedures are in place to manage complaints and UCC and that all staff who interact with complainants will receive training, guidance and direction about using the strategies suggested in this manual.

* Cartoon found at /www.sensiforous.com

U.K. General Election 7 May 2015 - live links for Australian political tragics

BBC News Election 2015 - results will appear on the website from 10pm on Thursday 7 May, London time (7am on Friday 8 May 2015 Sydney time)

BBC The World Service - radio election special.

U.K. Electoral Commission - electoral data can be found here.
Twitter on the night - @ElectoralCommUK.

Sky News Election 2015 Decision Time - news stories & live blog.

Huffington Post U.K. - expected general election seat declaration times here.

The Guardian U.K. - live bloggers here.

Election Forecast U.K. - updating forecasts on the website and on @Election4castUK as the results come in during the early hours of Friday morning London time.

Antony Green - in London and tweeting on @AntonyGreenABC on the night.

ABC News 24 Australia - updates on the night here from 7am AEST on Friday 8 May 2015.

CNN International - U.K. Election 2015 cover on the night d'écume.

Australian Privacy Commissioner grants journalist access to his own metadata withheld by Telstra in 2013

The Australian Privacy Commissioner has determined that metadata produced by journalist Ben Grubb’s mobile phone activity is personal information and ordered Telstra to allow him access to this type of data.

Unfortunately, changes* to the Commonwealth Privacy Act 1988 may mean that this determination might not support futures challenges in cases where a telecommunications company refuses access to an individual’s own metadata.

Ben Grubb and Telstra Corporation Limited [2015] AICmr 35 (1 May 2015): Determination and reasons for determination of Privacy Commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim

Background

3. On 15 June 2013 the complainant claimed a right of access under the Privacy Act to ‘all the metadata information Telstra has stored’ about him in relation to his mobile phone service, including (but not limited to) cell tower logs, inbound call and text details, duration of data sessions and telephone calls and the URLs of websites visited……..

Summary

1. Telstra Corporation Limited (Telstra) interfered with the complainant’s privacy by failing to provide the complainant with access to his personal information held by Telstra in breach of National Privacy Principle (NPP) 6.1 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (the Privacy Act).

2. To redress this matter, Telstra shall:

* within 30 business days after the making of this declaration, provide the complainant with access to his personal information held by Telstra in accordance with his request dated 15 June 2013, save that Telstra is not obliged to provide access to inbound call numbers;

* provide the complainant with access to the above information free of charge…….

13. I note from the outset that because this matter relates to events that occurred prior to reforms to the Privacy Act which commenced on 12 March 2014, the complaint has been dealt with under the legislative regime as it applied when the events occurred. The National Privacy Principles (NPPs) not the Australian Privacy Principles² therefore apply in this instance to the question of whether or not Telstra has breached the Act. The NPPs outline the standards for handling personal information that legally bind organisations.

Full transcript of this determination can be found here.

* The Privacy Act 1988 defined personal information as:

personal information means information or an opinion (including information or an opinion forming part of a database), whether true or not, and whether recorded in a material form or not, about an individual whose identity is apparent, or can reasonably be ascertained, from the information or opinion.

* Under the Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Act 2012 which amended the Privacy Act 1988, personal information is now defined thus:

personal information means information or an opinion about an identified individual, or an individual who is reasonably identifiable:

                     (a)  whether the information or opinion is true or not; and

                     (b)  whether the information or opinion is recorded in a material form or not.

BACKGROUND

The Sydney Morning Herald 4 May 2015:

Monday marks 688 days since I first asked Telstra for the metadata generated by my mobile phone - the same information it routinely gives law-enforcement and intelligence agencies without a warrant when investigating crime.

Monday also marks the start of Privacy Awareness Week 2015, which usually goes by each year without too much fuss and, to be quite frank, is a little boring. But this year's Privacy Awareness Week is different.

You see, Monday also marks the day the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner hasmade public a landmark decision in relation to my battle with Telstra for access to my metadata.

You might remember how I detailed my tussle with the telco last year, in which I explained how spies, councils, the RSPCA and others could gain access to my phone's metadata but I couldn't, as Telstra was refusing me access.

I wanted access to the data in light of the data retention laws, which recently passed parliament, so that I could show Australians exactly what metadata was, considering not even George Brandis could explain it. I wanted to put my metadata on a map like German politician Malte Spitz did after he successfully sued his telco in 2011 to show just how invasive having all of your metadata stored was in the wake of mandatory data retention in his country……

In Abbott's Australia things are improving - citizens are getting told "No" faster

Since the Abbott Government came to power in September 2013 information from government departments has been somewhat more difficult to obtain.

Websites have been redesigned in such a way that data is often buried layers deep with no obvious links on the home page, telephone queries are often answered more guardedly than before and now it seems that Freedom of Information (FOI) requests are being answered within an acceptable time frame but with those answers more likely to be a Yes, but or an outright No to releasing information if the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) December 2014 report on the Department of Human Services is any indication.

The Information Commissioner noted in relation to the Dept. of Human Services that between 2011–12 and 2013–14 there was: a) an increase in the department’s use of the FOI Act practical refusal mechanism, from 33 occasions in 2011–12 to 777 in 2013–14;  b) a decline in the number of FOI requests to which access to documents was given in full, from 58% of requests in 2011–12 to 26% in 2013–14; and c) an increase in the number of applications for Information Commissioner (IC) review of the department’s access refusal decisions, from 49 IC review applications in 2011–12 to 95 in 2013–14.

So how do other federal government departments which handle ‘sensitive’ information rate when it comes to the ease with which publicly available information can be obtained regarding their response to FOI requests?

Well there does appear to have been some improvements in time between FOI request received and reply sent by other government departments in the same period covered by the OAIC report.

However……………..

The Dept. of Immigration and Border Protection very cutely informs readers of its 2013-14 Annual Report of the high number of FOI requests it finalised in that financial year – but not the total number of these requests which resulted in a partial or complete refusal of requested data/information. The department’s disclosure logs give no indication as to whether documents supplied under FOI requests were redacted in the 2013 section, but do indicate which document releases were full/partial in the 2014 section of that financial year.

Given this department finalised 14,923 FOI requests in 2013-14, the relatively small number listed in the disclosure logs leads one to suspect that a great many requests were refused.

Of the 146 FOI requests which appear to have been finalised by the Dept. of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) in the 2013-14 financial year only 8 are listed as having been released as full or partially redacted documents and 3 are elsewhere listed as being rejected outright. The status of the remaining 135 FOI requests is uncertain.

In August 2014 this is what one released DPMC document looked like:

The content of which could not be more obscure.

The Australian Attorney-General’s Department website lists approximately 40 documents released under Freedom of Information in 2013-14 but there are no details published online and one must contact the department directly for information on these documents. The department’s annual report for that year does not list the number of FOI requests received or finalised.

According to its annual report the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) received 768 FOI requests in 2013-14 but only lists 9 finalised FOI requests for that period in its online disclosure log. The status of the remaining 759 is unknown. A number of the documents that were released are heavily redacted. 

Treasury displays 13 FOI requests on the departmental website for 2013-14. A number of documents are redacted and there is one refusal recorded. However, neither Treasury's website or annual report for that financial year state the number of FOI requests received or finalised in that year.

All in all, a suspicion forms that freedom of information is more honoured in concept than in fact by a government led by Tony Abbott, who before he became prime minister stated an alleged belief that; we should have a government which is transparent and open.

Senator Christine Milne: "Farewell, so long"

Photo from @ninemsm

Text of an email sent out by Australian Greens Senator Christine Milne on 6 May 2015:

Dear [redacted],

I've just stepped out of a meeting with my Party Room colleagues to send you this note. They are 10 of the best politicians I have ever known. And so, it is with a mix of optimism, pride and sadness that I am letting you know that, at that meeting, I resigned my position as Leader of the Australian Greens.

After 3 years as leader, 10 years as a senator, and 25 years in politics, the time has come.

To my family, staff, colleagues, friends, party members, supporters and voters – thank you. I have cherished your input, your passion, and your support.

From my humble beginnings in the rolling dairy hills of Wesley Vale where an alliance of farmers, fishers, scientists, environmentalists and community members stood together to prevent the construction of a polluting pulp mill, to being elected to the Tasmanian Parliament and going on to be the first woman to lead a political party in Tasmania.

There were battles against, and sometimes with, the Tasmanian Liberal Government, the subsequent Labor-Green Accord which doubled the Tassie Wilderness World Heritage Area and then the balance of power allowed us to deliver significant social change with gay law reform, gun law reform and an apology to the Indigenous Stolen Generation.

To the federal parliament, where we delivered a world-leading legislative package to price pollution – with an emissions trading scheme that worked and made the big polluters pay for their pollution, the biodiversity fund and $10 billion for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. I was proud of our achievements then and I remain proud of them now. The repeal of the carbon price was the last stand of the vanquished. The community is now leaving the old parties behind in the fossil-fool age and getting on with realising the clean energy jobs of the future.

I leave today knowing that I achieved what I set out to do when I stood as Leader – I have nurtured our growing Party Room into a team of equals, each using their dedication and expertise to deliver outcomes for the community.  I have overseen the Greens' electoral success, from retaining all our MPs and gaining one in the 2013 election, to successful state election campaigns in Victoria, Queensland and NSW which have seen our state parliamentary representation increase to record levels.

The Greens have proven that working together with a clear vision for our country's future and to speak with voters directly brings electoral and societal change. I have led the Australian Greens through a period of reform and modernisation which stands it in good stead for our future electoral success.

For me, life after parliament is not, however, life after politics. The fight for action on global warming will continue and I will take my passion and all that I've learnt, to that fight standing shoulder to shoulder with the community for climate justice. I'm looking forward to continuing my international advocacy and to holding Australia to account on the international stage.

The Greens are a party of vision. We are the party who can deliver the caring society and clean environment Australians deserve.  We are the only viable alternative to the old parties – and we have the strength and the will to make a difference.

Best wishes and thanks to you all,

Christine

PS Please consider joining the Australian Greens to be part of our bright, green, future. Click here: http://greens.org.au/join