"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
The #NACC was significantly non-compliant with the Govt's finance laws, erroneously reporting construction contracts worth $32.7m as being valued at $666,050.
The $32.7m construction projects represented almost third of the NACC's total resourcing for 2023-24.
The breach - without going into details - was mentioned in the NACC's annual report (p71)
Let's cut to the chase, the NACC Commissioner approved the conflict of interest (COI) guidelines and the requisite COI Form and then ignored the very process he had approved and did not lodge a formal COI Form.
#Leadership
On 12 July 2023, Brereton approved the NACC Senior Assessment Panel (NSAP) terms of reference, including the process to notify any COI.
The NSAP was the body that considered the #Robodebt6 referrals.
A key component of the NSAP terms of ref are the COI process. That process is outlined below.
One can't quibble about them......the word "must" does heavy lifting, as it should...especially in relation to the use of the Form to record a COI.
Starring: PM, PMC, Min for Home Affairs, Dept of Home Affairs.
Cameo: Jillian Segal
Still on the casting couch: Transparency
With much fanfare and a blaze of publicity the appointment of Jillian Segal as the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism (ASECA) was announced on 9 July.
Cameras rolling action!
Albo, flanked by then Immi min, Andrew Giles, & Labor MPs Mike Freelander & Josh Burns were there to show how serious the government was in combating antisemitism (which the PM stated)....and appeasing the pro-Israel lobby.
Just wanted to provide an update on the F-35 jet fighter, obviously a lot of focus on Australia's involvement in the global supply chain/production of the jet fighter.
I've seen a few diagrams most notably this one from 2018, sourced from the Department of Defence's document: F35: AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY PARTICIPATION THE JOURNEY TO $1 BILLION
The Department of Defence also provide an occasional F-35 Fast Facts update and the most recent one being "September/October 2023" - note timing.
WILL THE LAST NON-CONFLICTED NACCSTER TURN OFF THE #ROBODEBT LIGHT
Aside from #NACC Commissioner Paul Brereton, at least one other Senior Commission Staff (very likely a Deputy Commissioner) also had a conflict of interest.
This nugget is contained in a new FOI request which sought access to the conflict of interest material lodged by the Deputy Commissioners (and senior leadership team) in relation to the #Robodebt referral.
Unhelpfully, the NACC refers to "Senior Commission Staff" making it difficult to distinguish between Deputy Commissioners and the senior leadership team.
I want to belatedly talk about a 14th anniversary which occurred in May.
Cast your minds back to late May 2010.
It was, I believe, the last time an Israeli diplomat was punted from Australia.
The Australian government run by the Labor Political Party (<hi ALP comms team, see what I did there) showed a bit of spine and actually expelled an Israeli diplomat.
Then Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, took that action when our bosom buddies Israel, stole the identities of 4 Australians and forged passports which were then used in the assassination of a Hamas operative.