THREAD:
Kunkel review, backgrounding by PMO staff & FOIs
"Advice that was sought prior to a review being undertaken—how that could conceivably impinge upon people's privacy just seems like an odd argument to make, doesn't it?"
I know about this, as it was my FOI being discussed.
First a recap.
Morrison was asked a Q about backgrounding by his media team in #QT last year (25 March 2021).
His response was to get his Chief of Staff, John Kunkel, to do a review...taking account of Dept of Finance advice.
Kunkel, made great play of Finance's advice (see extract) in his "report" - a 4 page letter to Morrison.
Kunkel's review concluded that he was "not in a position not to make a finding that the alleged activity took place". That alleged activity being backgrounding by the PMO media team.
Given the reliance of Finance's advice as setting the ground rules for the review I decided to FOI that advice.
Finance knocked back my request.
But they did reveal what contact they had with the PMO.
Finance's letter of refusal knocking back my was 7 pages long.
Finance's written advice to the PMO was a single email.
Plus 3 phone conversations - they may have been short chats...or lengthy...who knows.....certainly the when and nature of discussions are being kept secret and away from the prying eyes of an FOI request .
Finance's grounds for refusal are couched in terms of it being a "deliberative process" Section 47C.
It would also impact "certain operations of the agency Section 47E.
The following extracts provides Finance's reasoning.
It also would infer that advice was being provided by Finance to PMO, not just on the terms of the review, but to PMO staff themselves (Personal Privacy Section 47F).
I can accept if that advice is around specific individuals the relevant parts should be redacted.
Of course, Finance attributed minimal weight to any public interest considerations in favour of disclosure of some or all of the documents.
Naturally, I sought an internal review.
Naturally, it came back as another refusal.
Naturally, it was almost word-for-word the same as the first knock back letter I received from Finance.....oh it was a page longer, as they had to include my grounds for a review in this letter.
In summary. According to the players involved.
Kunkel ran a ridgy-didge inquiry.
Finance provided ridgy-didge advice to the PMO (an email and 3 phone calls).
Yet, the subject of backgrounding, Mr Sharaz, wasn't even interviewed by Kunkel.
Finance's advice remains hush hush
Transparency...hey!
"My chief of staff found in the negative" - Scott Morrison
Morrison's version of #upfront
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.