2,810
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
Changing URLs from HTTP to HTTPS.
Guidelines issued by the Australian government's Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in October 2005 advised public servants on how to avoid personal notebook comments being disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act. "As some comments included in notebooks may have the potential to cause embarrassment or could be misinterpreted if taken out of context, you should transcribe the information that needs to be recorded into a file note, record of conversation or minute, and ensure it is placed on the appropriate departmental file. You can then destroy the original notes," the guideline says. [http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac?page=1&docID=AFR051019FH50Q4CSEGA]
In 2002 a Senate Committee of Inquiry investigating fabricated claims against a group of refugees perpetuated by a government taskforce complained that a failure to keep proper records rendered "the activities of the Taskforce largely inaccessible to subsequent scrutiny." [httphttps://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Children_Overboard]
The following month, the Australian Treasurer and Prime Ministerial aspirant, [[Peter Costello]], claimed that the provision of documents under FOI laws might inhibit the quality of government advice. He then misleadingly claimed that the original intent was that FOI laws would be primarily directed towards information that government held on individuals. "The Freedom of Information Laws as originally conceived were particularly to allow citizens to know what the Government knew about them and that is their use and to allow citizens to correct information that the Government has wrongly held about them. I would not want to see practices growing up under those laws which would inhibit policy making or would lead to a disinclination in relation to working documents and policy development to document in writing the pros and cons of particular proposals," he said.
