Missing News: Their ABC, diverse views and the FOI Act

We last posted on missing news items on ABC in 2015. ABC's inherent Green-left bias means that any news item falling outside ABC's collective hive mind ends up classified as doubleplusungood, unfit for Australian consumption. Don't let the facts get in the way and spoil our alarmist fun.

In our absence from action a guest post at Catallaxy Files takes up the cudgel....
Their ABC, diverse views and the FOI Act 
When is it OK for our national broadcaster to thumb its nose at its own code of practice?  The obvious answer is never, but we know it happens routinely.  So what can the common worker-drone do about it?  Not much, but we can at least try to use existing legislation to draw attention to the more egregious examples.
One such attempt is described here.  Settle back, this is lengthy.

With the ‘splodey-headed ABC-luvvies  fairly busy being maximally outraged by the US citizenry’s choice for their highest public office, it seemed a good time to try and sink the slipper into them over their second most-passionately held world view – our unfolding ”climate disaster” – and their deranged reporting of it.

Read on via the link above. 

FOI

Aging Journo Mike Steketee has a post on ABC's The Drum regarding FOI. Any mention of FOI on the ABC always causes much amusement here as the organization is largely exempt from it.
When these restrictions are finally lifted and ABC is exposed to the same FOI provisions as the rest of government perhaps it will be entitled to say a thing or two on the subject until then it's just more hypocrisy.

Where did ABC get its advice from?

Letter in The Australian today...

WRITING in The Australian about the ABC's publication of stolen intelligence documents that damaged Australia's relations with Indonesia, the ABC's director of news Kate Torney said: "We took advice from Australia's intelligence authorities on the matter and redacted sensitive operational information that might have compromised national security" ("Criticism of ABC's spying scoop reeks of sour grapes", 26/11).
A Freedom of Information request I made to the ABC for copies of the advice produced the following response from ABC's head of corporate governance: "The requested documents do not exist and therefore access to them is refused pursuant to s24A of the FOI Act."
As the ABC is a trusted source of news, perhaps Torney could explain where the advice came from.

This sent to the OZ on the 23rd of December. As readers here will know ABC's Head of Editorial Policy, Alan Sunderland has since provide clarification on the nature of communications, indicating they were provided "face to face" and ABC did not create any documents detailing that advice, hence the failure of my FOI request.

I have sent a follow up letter to the OZ indicating this and also asking some follow up questions of the ABC. Wait and see.

Update...That letter in Saturday's Australian...

SINCE my letter requesting the ABC reveal the source of intelligence advice it sought in relation to stolen intelligence documents (Letters, 27/12), the ABC's head of editorial policy, Alan Sunderland, has indicated it was provided face-to-face and the ABC kept no records.

Questions remain about which agencies the ABC contacted and the nature of the advice provided. If the agencies involved had Australia's best interests in mind, they would have objected to the ABC's involvement in reporting the documents. Why did the ABC ignore this part of the advice? If objections were not made by agencies supposed to have the national interest at heart, then why not? In the ABC's justification for reporting this story, its news director Kate Torney concluded: "We will not succumb to pressure to suppress or ignore legitimate stories to protect those in power." Will the ABC live up to this?

Questions remain about agencies contacted by the ABC in Snowden scandal

We will not succumb to pressure to suppress or ignore legitimate stories to protect those in power.
Kate Torney ABC News Director

In November, 2013 ABC reported on Top secret Australian DSD documents that showed Australian Spy agencies tapped the mobile phones of the Indonesian President and his wife in 2009. The report included copies of Top Secret Defense Signals Directorate Powerpoint slides stolen by US contractor Edward Snowden, currently hiding from US authorities. Public disclosure of this information has done significant damage to Australian Indonesian relations. The Australian Newspaper recently provided important background information missing from ABC's reporting that provides an explanation for Australia's interest in the private conversations of the Indonesian President and his wife.

ABC justified its reporting and collaboration with The Guardian on the basis that release of the information was in the public interest. In senate estimates ABC Managing Director Mark Scott indicated that prior to the report being published the ABC discussed the story with "Australian Authorities". According to Alan Sunderland the communications were done face to face and the ABC retained no records, explaining the failure of an FOI request we made to see documents related to this advice.

Questions remain as to which agencies the ABC contacted and the advice that was provided.

We assume if the agencies involved had Australia's interests in mind they would have strongly objected to the ABC's involvement in reporting the documents in collaboration with the Guardian. Why did the ABC ignore these requests? If objections were not made then this would represent a serious breach of duty of care to our national interests. This is a matter of public interest and as such we will attempt to obtain more details of the advice ABC was provided.

In ABC's justification for reporting this story its News Director Kate Torney concluded:
We will not succumb to pressure to suppress or ignore legitimate stories to protect those in power.
We shall wait and see whether ABC live up to this maxim? Or are those words mere confetti?

UPDATED FOI-request for records of communication with appropriate authorities

UPDATE: Alan Sunderland ABC's Head of Editorial Policy takes a WEB break and provides the following:

Marc,
The advice provided by intelligence was not provided in writing, it was provided face to face. That is why there are no documents of the kind you sought. The ABC itself also did not create any documents detailing that advice.
Merry Christmas,
Alan Sunderland (currently on "well-earned" break)
Head of Editorial Policy
ABC

To which I replied:

Thanks Alan,

ABC MD Mr Scott in senate estimates referred to multiple authorities -see transcript below. In the public interest can ABC indicate which authorities it spoke directly with. Based on your response it seems there was only one agency involved in which case Mr Scott may have mislead senate estimates (ed. on the number of agencies it took advice from).

From senate estimates transcript:

Mr Scott : I think there were discussions with The Guardian, but there were also discussions with appropriate authorities. As would usually be the case with a story, we went to appropriate figures—

Regards

Marc

Reply From Alan Sunderland:

Marc

I'm not proposing to go into any further details, but I can confirm that the MD's advice was accurate. 

Cheers,

Alan

Our response:

Dear Alan,

Thanks again. The ABC justified publication of stolen top secret classified documents on the grounds of public interest. I am using the same grounds to request for further details about ABC's communications with authorities.  In particular which agencies ABC spoke with (I am not requested the names of individuals) and the nature of the advice they provided. I find it hard to believe that the agencies involved condoned the release of stolen top secret information and on this basis would suggest on this basis that the ABC went against the advice of the agencies it contacted. It would be in the public interest to discover that the agencies involved did not recommend to the ABC that the documents not be reported upon in the first instance by the ABC. 

Look forward to your response. Appreciate your time away from WEB. Note in the public interest our correspondence is posted at the ABC NEWS WATCH blog.

Regards

Marc

Original Post below
In light of revelations that ABC do not have any documents that confirm ABC took advice from Australia's intelligence authorities, before it published stolen top secret information, we put the following request to ABC's FOI coordinator, perhaps a slightly different wording may reveal traces of the communication:

Dear FOI coordinator,

I refer to the following extract of the Hansard Transcript of ABC's managing director's testimony to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee - 19/11/2013 - Estimates - COMMUNICATIONS PORTFOLIO

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;orderBy=priority,doc_date-rev;page=5;query=Dataset%3Aestimate;rec=14;resCount=Default

I request under FOI any records related to the ABC's communications with "appropriate authorities" referred to by Mr Scott in the transcript below.

Senator LUDLAM: Mr Scott, I am going to take you back to where you began in response to some remarks that you made on questioning from my colleague Senator Ruston. I was watching and listening fairly attentively from my office downstairs and appreciate the candour of your comments regarding the story that the ABC and The Guardian broke yesterday. I think it was extremely well put. I am interested in the process of redaction. I notice that, of the slides you published, six or so slides have been redacted. Have you done that in collaboration with The Guardian, or is that something separate?

Mr Scott : I think there were discussions with The Guardian, but there were also discussions with appropriate authorities. As would usually be the case with a story, we went to appropriate figures—I will not go into detail on that—saying that we were aware of these matters, that we had seen these documents and that this was the shape of the story that we might be running. There was some consultation around that. I think that, in light of representations that were made, a decision was made to withdraw some elements on those slides. I will not go into the detail of that information, but that was a decision that we came to. That is not an atypical process.

Senator LUDLAM: Were you at that point coordinating with the editors of The Guardian?

Mr Scott : I believe I was aware the story was coming together and finally briefed on its shape before it went to air, but I believe that, even though, when the ABC was aware of this material, the ABC reporting staff made its own calls, made its own inquiries and wrote and filmed our own stories independently from The Guardian, there were points where there was discussion with The Guardian, including around the time when the story would be published.

Senator LUDLAM: Presumably in what form the primary source material would be published.

Mr Scott : Yes. I think there was an agreement around what material would be redacted and the reasons for that.

Senator LUDLAM: Can we assume that some of those redactions are a direct response to your process of checking with various authorities?

Mr Scott : Yes you can.

Senator LUDLAM: Publishers including The Guardian, The New York Times and others in the United States rest on first-amendment protections when they put this material to air or online, but in the UK, you are no doubt aware, the offices of The Guardian have been not quite raided but have had the editor told, 'Time's up; you've had your fun' and The Guardian has been forced to drill out and destroy hard drives containing the source material and, effectively, told to stop publishing. To their credit, they have not. What is the legal situation here in Australia? On what constitutional protections, if any, do you rest when you put a story like this to air?

Mr Scott : I do not have precise detail in front of me. We had this story legalled. We did not believe there was any legal impediment to broadcasting this material, but I do not have that precise legal advice in front of me this afternoon.

Senator LUDLAM: Okay. Do you publish under some kind of implied freedom of publication or are you exposed in the same way as publishers in, for example, the UK?

Mr Scott : We clearly do not have the first amendment here. In our discussions with authorities yesterday there were no other issues raised with us that was an inhibitor on us publishing this material.

Senator LUDLAM: That is good. I know it would not normally be the practice.

Mr Scott : And our act does require us to comply with the law. This is one of the reasons why we seek legal advice prior to publication.

Senator LUDLAM: I guess I am more concerned that the law is silent rather than containing any explicit prohibition for you to do what you have done. The law in the Australian Constitution is silent.

Mr Scott : That is true. There is no prevailing first-amendment protection.

FOI - Did ABC take advice from Australian intelligence authorities?

On the 26th of November 2013, The Australian newspaper published an op-ed piece by Director of ABC News Kate Torney defending ABC's collaborative publication of a report about stolen US documents that indicated Australian agencies had tapped into mobile phones of the Indonesian President and his wife. Titled: Criticism of ABC's spying scoop reeks of sour grapes, the piece contained this statement:

"As the ABC's managing director made clear at Senate estimates last week, that simply isn't true. We did not publish everything we had access to. We took advice from Australia's intelligence authorities on the matter and redacted sensitive operational information that might have compromised national security."

I was interested in looking at what "advice" ABC had been provided by "Australia's intelligence authorities" so filed an FOI request with the ABC for: “copies of the advice provided to the ABC by Australia’s intelligence authorities [as mentioned in a piece by Kate Torney published in The Australian newspaper on 26 November 2013]”.

Below is ABC's response which raises some serious questions about the veracity of Torney's claims that ABC took advice from  "Australia's intelligence authorities on the matter". It seems no documents can be found to support this claim!

We have sent the following question to ABC's Mark Scott, cc'd to Malcolm Turnbull Communications Minister and Senator Ann Ruston member of the senate's Environment and Communications Legislation Committee:

Dear Mr Scott,
In light of the results of an ABC FOI search (see attached) that could not locate any documents that confirm ABC sought advice from "Australia's intelligence authorities" in relation to stolen US documents reported upon by the ABC that have significantly damaged Australia's relations with Indonesia can you please confirm that ABC sought advice from "Australia's intelligence authorities" prior to publication of the documents, and the nature of that advice. The basis of the request is a claim made by ABC's director of news Kate Torney in an op-ed piece published by The Australian newspaper on the 26th of November, 2013 in which Ms Torney claims: "We took advice from Australia's intelligence authorities on the matter and redacted sensitive operational information that might have compromised national security."

Scott's initial reply...I am currently travelling on annual leave.

FOI REQUEST - REFERENCE NUMBER 2013-053

I refer to your request for access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act) in your email of 26 November 2013. You have sought access to the following documents:

“copies of the advice provided to the ABC by Australia’s intelligence authorities [as mentioned in a piece by Kate Torney published in The Australian newspaper on 26 November 2013]”.

I am authorised by the Managing Director under section 23 of the FOI Act to make decisions in respect of requests made under that Act. Following is my decision in relation to your request.

Locating and identifying documents
I have taken reasonable steps to identify and locate all relevant documents. My search for these documents involved contacting:

• Office of the Director, News;
• Head of Policy and Staff Development in the News Division; and
• Managing Director’s Chief of Staff.

I requested that searches be conducted of all hard and soft copy records for documents which fall within the scope of your request. As a result of those searches, no documents were identified.

In the present case, I consider that all reasonable steps have been taken to locate relevant documents. I am further satisfied that the requested documents do not exist and therefore access to them is refused pursuant to s24A of the FOI Act.

Judith Maude
Head, Corporate Governance

UPDATE: as the same article appeared on THE DRUM under a different headline we have lodged a complaint of factual error with the ABC.

Recommended Reading

Some insightful Op Eds in today's Australian....

First a piece by Greg Sheridan that puts ABC's decision to throw Australia's relationship with Indonesia under a bus into perspective:

Spy story shows ABC at its left-wing worst
THE ABC emerges from the Indonesian spy scandal a diminished organisation, morally compromised and journalistically discredited.

The second exposes ABC's willful ignorance of what may be one of the biggest news stories of a generation:
When Aunty turned a blind eye
THIS year, the ABC has studiously ignored every major development in the Victoria Police major fraud squad investigation into the Australian Workers Union scandal. Even the proceedings of Victoria's courts on the matter - the bread and butter of local journalism - have eluded the national broadcaster's local reporters. 

FOI Request

ABC is in deep doo doo over its publication of secret information stolen and leaked by a rogue US intelligence contractor.

We submitted the following FOI this morning. Based on past experience we are not too optimistic. But ABC have managed to release sensitive data by accident so who knows maybe it will eventually get out through unofficial channels. (ed This should be of concern to Australia's intelligence authorities).

Dear Sir/ Madam,
In an op ed piece in today's Australian Newspaper, ABC's Director of news Kate Torney states:

"As the ABC's managing director made clear at Senate estimates last week, that simply isn't true. We did not publish everything we had access to. We took advice from Australia's intelligence authorities on the matter and redacted sensitive operational information that might have compromised national security. What was left was the central revelation that we considered then and consider now to be a matter of legitimate public debate. The allegation that we recklessly dumped unfiltered data doesn't stand up to the most cursory examination."

Refer:http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/criticism-of-abcs-spying-scoop-reeks-of-sour-grapes/story-e6frg6z6-1226768178028

Under FOI can you please provide me with copies of the advice provided to the ABC by Australia's intelligence authorities on this matter mentioned by Ms Torney above. It is in the public interest to see exactly the advice ABC were provided to better judge ABC's handling of this sensitive issue. For instance which particular advice did ABC apparently ignore while participating in the publication of information that has damaged Australia's relations with Indonesia, putting lives at risk?

We note Ms Torney closes her piece with the following line:  "We will not succumb to pressure to suppress or ignore legitimate stories to protect those in power." Given ABC does not want to be branded a hypocrite we expect the documents will be expedited through ABC's FOI process.

FOI request turned down: Help Annabel!

ABC's Annabel Crabb recently lamented the lack of cooperation from the Public Service when it comes to releasing government documents. Perhaps she would be willing to assist me with an FOI request that has run into trouble?
It is with some irony (given that ABC are a member of the Right to Know Coalition) that today I received notification from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, that in my FOI request for ABC documents it has sided with the ABC and rejected it. Readers may recall I had hoped to establish the nature of internal correspondence between ABC's Audience and Consumer Affairs branch and its news division over its reporting of purported death threats sent to climate scientists. It seemed to us on the evidence available that ACA had acted independently of ABC news in replying to us. Recall in May this year we wrote:

Dear  ABC,

ABC Audience and consumer affairs provided the following comment in reply to a complaint I made on 10 May at 9:21pm about missing news of the privacy commissioners findings on ANU death threat emails  "Audience and Consumer Affairs does not consider there is a case to correct the stories."  I received the reply from your Mr Maley at 10.39am on May 11. 

Mr Maley stated in his email that he had consulted ABC News   "In the interests of procedural fairness, we have also sought and considered material from ABC News." However at  May 11, 2012 09:06:07am, over an hour before his reply to me, ABC News posted the following story:FOI emails reveal threats to climate scientists. on its website (this story subsequently corrected on 21 May).

Can you please confirm whether there was in fact any consultation between ABC News and ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs. On face value it seems there was no consultation at all. How else do you explain the timing?

As ABC were not forthcoming we looked to FOI to provide correspondence between ACA and News that might reveal what occurred. So we requested:
-emails and phone records concerning a complaint I submitted to ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs on 10 May 2012; and

-copies of all emails and phone records between ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs and ABC News between the period 3 May 2012 to 6 June 2012 dealing with complaints or other issues stemming from a number of ABC news reports.

The information commissioner has sided with the ABC and ruled the documents are exempt from the provisions of the FOI act as they somehow relate to programming.


Given that the Federal Court has clearly found that "letters of complaint about the ABC's programs and responses to those complaints on the same subject as well as documents internal to the ABC on this subject" fall within the definition of program material, it would appear that the ABC's decision on your freedom of information request was correct. As such, without further explanation of why your request and the ABC's decision is not consistent with the view expressed by the Federal Court I must conclude that your application is lacking in substance. As such I intend to finalise your application for 1C review unless you provide me with reasons to reconsider this decision.


It seems ABC use this excuse to hide all its dirty linen and the Information Commissioner lacks the will to rule otherwise. Perhaps with the right lobbying and the election of a government interested in accountability, ABC might be forced to open its dark chamber. Until then perhaps ABC should remove itself from the right to know coalition.

Cracking ABC's chamber of secrets-review requested

Our request for a review of ABC's recent decision to withhold internal (non-program) correspondence requested under FOI that related to complaints about its misleading  and erroneous coverage of purported ANU death threats has been sent to the Information Commissioner.

Given it is successful we would expect ABC to provide a reasonable cost estimate for delivery of the documents. However based on the amount requested by ANU  to comply with the release of documents requested under FOI by Simon Turnhil, it seems ABC will have another card to play in their attempts to avoid public scrutiny and accountability.

Cracking ABC's chamber of secrets

The ABC is one of the only parts of the public sector that is virtually unaccountable to parliament and the public. It is not responsible to its minister, large parts of its operations are exempt from FOI and its governing board rules with a wet sponge. 


Back in 2010 we tried to open ABC's chamber of secrets through an FOI request for internal correspondence about ABC's faulty climate timeline. It didn't succeed thanks to provisions in the act that render aspects of the ABC exempt from FOI.

As Chris Merritt reports in today's Australian newspaper (ABC tries again on death threats report)

we are having another crack at ABC's chamber of secrets, with an FOI request regarding internal correspondence related to complaints about its faulty reporting about death threats at ANU. ABC have responded with their standard line that the correspondence is exempt: from ABC's head of corporate governance Judith Maude received June 5, 2012:

I refer to your email of 30 May 2012 in which you sought access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act). Specifically, you have requested access to “copies of email communications or phone records between ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs Mark Maley and ABC News between the period 9:21 pm 10/05/12 and 11am on May 11, 2012.  Specifically communications purportedly dealing with a complaint I submitted to ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs on May 10 at 21:12”.

The documents you have sought access to are outside the scope of the FOI Act.

Under section 7(2) and Part 2 of Schedule II of the FOI Act, the ABC is exempt from the operation of the Act in relation to documents that relate “to its program material and datacasting content”. The Federal Court of Australia considered the scope of this exclusion in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v The University of Technology, Sydney [2006] FCA964, and decided that the exclusion applies to “program material” (such as scripts and tapes) as well as any document that has a “direct or indirect relationship to program material”.

I am satisfied that the documents you have described would have a direct relationship with the ABC’s program material such that they fall outside the operation of the FOI Act.

If you are dissatisfied with this decision you can apply for Internal or Information Commissioner (IC) Review. You do not have to apply for Internal Review before seeking IC Review. Information about your review rights is attached.

The FOI will initially be expanded to request all correspondence between ABC News and ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs relating to ABC's two erroneous reports (FOI emails reveal abuse of climate scientists and Climate scientist abuse emails released) rather than just the narrow window we initially requested. We will inevitably receive another letter like the above which will then be passed onto the Information Commissioner for review. In our opinion, internal correspondence about complaints do not constitute "Program Material". They are an important part of ABC's governance and accountability provisions and should be open to public scrutiny. We shall see what the information commissioner thinks of it.

Here's what Sen John Faulkner had to say about changes to FOI made by the government in early 2009:
"Sen Faulkner will be taking steps outside of the legislative process, sending personal letters to agency heads, which will highlight the need to embrace the new “pro-disclosure” culture.
These changes will help to create “a shift from the culture of secrecy we saw under the last Government to one of openness and transparency,” he said."
Source http://www.reportage.uts.edu.au/media/detail.cfm?ItemId=14713
It appears none of those letters found their way to the ABC.

In the meantime we are still waiting for that brave whistle, who might blow some of the dust hiding our Aunty's light.

Change FOI to govern ABC

Former ABC board member Judith Sloan writes in today's Australian:

Their ABC is just ungovernable
"Short of some broad-based and hard-nosed external review and significant cuts to taxpayer funding of the organisation, it is hard to see how the ABC will fundamentally change -- and, of course, that suits the Friends of the ABC and other devotees just fine."
Follow the link to read the rest.

A simple method to make the ABC more accountable is to expose the organisation to the full force of FOI. The ABC currently enjoys wide ranging exemptions from FOI for "documents that relate to program material". The exemptions provide a means to shelter the ABC from public scrutiny. As we have found HERE this exemption is widely applied by the ABC to the detriment of the public's right to know. As FOI lawyer Peter Timmins documents in an article on his blog, titled FOI front in the News v ABC battle, ABC's use of the exemption has been extended to cover information relating to audience data and employee salaries. These subjects are not related to program content, but ABC has successfully argued the exemption still applies. It seems that as the ABC's role is "programming" it can argue virtually everything it does should be covered by the exemption.

ABC programming is paid for by tax payer's funds and should be as open to scrutiny and audit as much as the rest of government. Why is the ABC provided with a "chamber of secrets" in which to hide its dirty laundry?
I guess ABC's membership of the "Right to Know" coalition is for publicity purposes only.




UPDATE 19/8/2011 Letters page in today's Oz contains some comments on Judith's article (including ours) HERE.

DBCDE confirm ABC's chamber of secrets closed for view

COMMENT: We received the following letter from the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy confirming ABC's chamber of secrets remains locked from public scrutiny thanks to current FOI legislation. This followed our request to obtain "correspondence, electronic (emails) and otherwise in connection to the production of the ABC website " A journey through Climate History", including commissioning instructions and comments on initial versions." See "FOI request for climate time line emails-request denied."
Based on replies to our complaints so far, it is clear that ABC's self regulation is failing and ABC is suffering from a severe case of "confirmation bias" especially in its reporting on climate change. Opening that box of secrets will require a change in legislation. ABC NEWSWATCH will lobby parliament for the necessary changes that will see proper scrutiny of the way ABC expends public resources.

ABC FOI - Keeping the lid on the chamber of secrets.

COMMENT: ABC submission to The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Public consultation on the exposure draft of the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2009. The statements repeated below caught our eye. The full document is available here:
http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/ABCsub_DPMC_FOI-Reform-Bill_May2009.pdf

Ensuring public accountability while protecting independence and integrity.
When considering the extent to which the ABC is subject to the FOIA, it is important to bear in mind that the ABC’s administrative functions are quite distinct from its newsgathering and programming activities. The former are quite properly the subject of FOIA. The ABC is a public body funded by public monies and accordingly is and should be held to account for the management and administration of the corporation and its resources. The latter newsgathering and programming activities, however, are not governmental activities. The ABC is held to account for maintaining high standards in its journalistic and creative endeavours through a mixture of co- and self-regulatory measures which have been carefully crafted to protect the ABC’s independence and integrity and ensure it is not subject to interference by external influences – whether by government, commercial or private interests.

The proposed model for the ABC’s exclusion
 The ABC proposes that the current exclusion in the FOIA be replaced with wording that uses the Canadian exclusion, suitably adapted for the digital era. Accordingly, the following wording is proposed to be used in substitution to the current exclusion in Schedule 2 of the FOIA: Australian Broadcasting Corporation, in relation to documents in respect of its journalistic, creative or content activities, other than documents relating to its general administration.


Time that self regulation ended and the ABC was exposed to the full force of FOI to give the public the right to be able to investigate poor editorial and programming decisions such as those surrounding "A climate time line". With the ABC's  preferred text adopted that chamber of secrets will be sealed tight forever.

Accountable to no one!

COMMENT
In an opinion piece on the ABC's The Drum ABC Director Mark Scott claimed:
"As a taxpayer-funded broadcaster, the ABC must be prepared to account for its actions and to expect more scrutiny as we use the opportunities presented by new technologies to move into new areas. We are accountable to the Board. We give evidence on our activities to Parliament."

Pity about that FOI exemption that makes it impossible for the public to open ABC's chamber of secrets. 

ABC Open project -What about FOI?

ABC Director Mark Scott replies to criticism of its "ABC Open Project" in today's Australian. At ABC NEWS WATCH we wonder whether the ABC's stance on FOI requests will form part of this "open" project...see - ABC: you can't open the chamber of secrets. Under ABC's current FOI regime the public would likely be denied access to any documents requested concerning development and production of this content.

ABC not waging war
THE ABC welcomes public debate about its future in the new media landscape. But recent criticisms of its ABC Open project ("ABC’s `hidden’ plans under fire”, 24/2) do not stand up to scrutiny. Firstly, the ABC is not asking for, nor has it been given, taxpayers’ funds to wage war on commercial media in regional markets. ABC local radio has happily coexisted with commercial news operators in regional markets for more than 70 years.
The aim of ABC Open is to put producers and editors into regions to equip locals with the skills to create and post content. One would have thought this attempt to bridge the digital divide - so evident in regional Australia - would benefit all media organisations. There is no hidden or stealth agenda. The broadband hubs project was announced in last year’s federal budget and the ABC has been answerable to its details in Estimates committees.

Mark Scott, ABC Managing Director

ABC FOI - You can't open the chamber of secrets.

For those considering an FOI request to the ABC for program related material, such as internal correspondence that might provide an insight into the way errors get into the ABC's editorial process, beware of a clause in the FOI act that lists the ABC as an exempt agency with respect to documents "in relation to its program material and datacasting content" (Part II of schedule 2). We have emailed the communications Minister Stephen Conroy for clarification as to why this should be the case. ABC programming is paid for by tax payer's funds and should be as open to scrutiny and audit as much as the rest of government. Why is the ABC provided with a "chamber of secrets" in which to place its dirty laundry?


ABC cite ABC v University of Technology Sydney in relationship to this and from the ruling it seems the only way to open the vault is for the FOI ACT to be amended to allow access to ABC documents. Read the judgement HERE, it appears it effectively excludes the ABC from FOI in relation anything related to program material.


See http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/02/foi-request-for-climate-time-line.html for the impact this  "Stainesque" legislation had on our attempt to investigate errors in an ABC program. 


For those considering an FOI request we suggest first speaking with ABC FOI coordinator prior to formally applying to save some time and cash. The application fee costs $30.00.


Update: By the way here's what Sen John Faulkner had to say about changes to FOI  made by the government in early 2009:

Sen Faulkner will be taking steps outside of the legislative process, sending personal letters to agency heads, which will highlight the need to embrace the new “pro-disclosure” culture.

These changes will help to create “a shift from the culture of secrecy we saw under the last Government to one of openness and transparency,” he said. 

Source http://www.reportage.uts.edu.au/media/detail.cfm?ItemId=14713

We are left wondering if any letters found their way to the ABC.

FOI request for climate time line emails-Request denied.

As part of its investigation into ABC's faulty website "A journey through climate history" ABC NEWS WATCH submitted an FOI request the the ABC for:


"correspondence, electronic (emails) and otherwise in connection to the production of the ABC website " A journey through Climate History", including commissioning instructions and comments on initial versions."

The request has been turned down on the grounds that the ABC is an exempt agency for the purposes of the FOI Act with respect to documents "in relation to its program material and datacasting content".


Pity the ABC don't outline this on their website and we would have saved ourselves the cost of the application fee. 


SOME QUESTIONS:
1. Why are documents related to ABC program material and datacasting content exempt from FOI? 
2. Clearly where tax payer funds have been used to produce a faulty program, there is a compelling public interest in releasing documents that might shed light on how such faults got through the ABC's editorial system?
3. What have the ABC got to hide? 
4. Does the ABC have its own Climategate in the making?


Is there a brave whistle blowing?