Heavy redactions, nonsensical decisions and exorbitant fees are part and parcel of Australia’s freedom of information system.
But every now and then, FOI cases emerge that are so patently bizarre, they warrant special mention. We’ve gathered a list of four of the most perplexing decisions this year, to give a sense of just how underwhelming FOI can be.
1. China’s likely view of our foreign interference laws is off-limits, department rules
Foreign affairs is always a tricky topic to illuminate with FOI. Documents affecting the relations with a foreign state are kept from the reach of the public by Australia’s Freedom of Information Act. So it’s perhaps not surprising that an FOI request for documents about the impact of Australia’s foreign interference crackdown on relations with China was not particularly successful.
But the release is particularly galling for the heavy use of redactions. The censors didn’t leave a single word, other than a few inconsequential subheadings and dates, in this six-page document release.
2. Coal and climate change not matters of public interest?
One of the most prohibitive aspects of FOI is the cost. Apply for documents, and you will almost certainly be charged a fee. It’s often not a lot, maybe $200, but it’s just enough to deter shrinking newsrooms and smaller not-for-profits, who can’t risk wasting money on a request that may prove useless.
To get past fees, media agencies routinely rely on having them waived because the material is in the public interest. It doesn’t always go to plan.
In one recent case, Australian Associated Press argued the government ought to release documents on Australia’s support for a new coal mine in Papua New Guinea because coal was linked with higher emissions and climate change, a matter of clear public interest. The journalist argued:
I contend it is both in the general public interest and in the interest of a substantial section of the public for these documents to be released.
Climate change is a huge problem facing the world. There is a link between coal and carbon pollution emissions.
There is a huge public debate in Australia under way about energy security and the role of coal in the future.
I contend it is both in the general public interest and in the interest of a substantial section of the public to know if the Australian government is supporting efforts to set up the first coal mine and coal-fired power plant in PNG.
The argument failed to convince the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It decided the fee must be paid and charged $200 to process seven documents. Again, just enough to deter reporters with shrinking newsroom budgets.
So AAP took it to the tribunal. It didn’t take the tribunal long to decide that coal and climate change were, in fact, matters of public interest. Significant public interest, in fact.
It appears access to the documents would contribute to the public record on an industry that is at the forefront of public debate and is regularly in the media, namely coal mining in and by Australia. I find that access to documents concerning coal mining activities in Papua New Guinea, our nearest neighbouring nation, has significant public interest.
3. Arms exports to the United Arab Emirates
You’d be hard pressed to argue Australians shouldn’t know what and how many weapons our government is supplying to the United Arab Emirates, a country engaged in the bloody Yemen war. The United Nations has accused the coalition led by the UAE and Saudi Arabia of killing thousands of civilians in airstrikes, torturing detainees, using child soldiers and raping civilians.
The defence department was asked for details on Australia’s arms exports to the UAE. The released documents were so heavily redacted that they were practically useless, unless you know precisely what you are looking for. Of the 110 pages released, every one is almost entirely redacted. Defence argued releasing the information “would or could reasonably be expected to cause damage to the international relations” of Australia. Other parts of the information would reveal deliberative processes of the government, exempt under the FOI Act, or that it would or could have a “substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of an agency”.
How good's FOI???? Such transparency, much openness. https://t.co/bDu7ufSKiQ pic.twitter.com/GI9bzbyvkx
— Christopher Knaus (@knausc) December 7, 2018
4. Records of Crown’s VIP gambling flights a ‘risk to public safety’
The Age investigative journalist Chris Vedelago placed a well-targeted request to Airservices Australia two years ago, seeking access to the flight records of Crown’s VIP planes, which it uses to ferry high rollers. He had every right to be confident of success.
Precisely the same records had been released by Airservices Australia twice in the past, without issue.
But after contacting Crown, Airservices Australia decided that releasing the records would threaten the safety of passengers, because would-be conspirators would use the documents to predict flight patterns and place patrons at “higher risk of interference and so put them and or crew in danger”. It was a strange argument. As Vedelago noted:
As clearly demonstrated by 2013 and 2014 releases, Crown flies to and from dozens of destinations in multiple countries on dates and times that demonstrate no pattern of routine.
He appealed the decision to the information commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim, and the Airservices decision was overturned without equivocation.
But the process of application, review and appeal took 18 months, an eternity in journalism.
Vedelago requested the documents on 22 November 2016. They didn’t come through until 4 May 2018.
