10 June 2009

Mark Cormack gets snippy about the black texta

| johnboy
Join the conversation
27

The ABC reports that the ACT Health chief executive Mark Cormack has spat the dummy over the Liberals’ Jeremy Hanson’s suggestion towards the end of May, that FOI requests might be receiving politically sensitive handling.

    Mr Cormack has pointed to a press release issued by Liberal MLA Jeremy Hanson last month, which says the Government blacked out the words “cellar door” and “vineyard” from documentation it gave the Opposition.

    “That is a matter that I must defend,” he said.

I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide what they believe.

Join the conversation

27
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

You don’t make FOI releases based on purpose or context – those considerations must be ignored. It could be for any purpose because, let’s face it, once released it can be for any purpose.

PM, I don’t question your motives for one moment and I agree that greater rather then less disclosure is a positive thing. I’ve got no business barrow to push either, but I support the general idea of a rehab service on the site.

From what I’ve observed the leaseholders who wrote to the Government airing concerns about the establishment of the health facility did so because they beleived it would have in adverse impact on their future plans. I can’t agree with that view, but I can’t see that disclosing the specifics behind their plans, as opposed to the fact they had concerns over the proposal, is any sort of cover-up. We do know they’re not happy, and the FOI release doesn’t cover-up that fact.

Further, as the correspondence concerned in this issue was a private communication with the Chief Minister, it doesn’t seem at all reasonable to me that the Health Department ‘publish’ it for broarder consumption, in the response to Hansen’s FOI request. Leaving the exemption provisions in section 43 aside for a moment, the Health Department would’ve had an obligation to seek the leaseholders’ consent (as an effected third party) prior to release of the letter (in full).

And it isn’t about who the business is (as though the few people in that valley can’t work it out anyway) but that their business planning isn’t a matter of public interest until the law says it should be – ie when they want to move to the DA process. Perhaps, until that point, they’d prefer to keep their intentions to themselves. That seems very reasonable, and was my point about it not being ‘your’ (ie our) business, at least at this time. After all nothing has happened, or can, until they are required to let everyone else into their plans – via the DA process.

I don’t see the issue as a cover-up to protect the Government, but one of the right of these people to go about their business, unfetted. This applies equally to private individuals. I know I would be furious if a letter I’d written to a minister ended up being used a a political tool, to my possible disadvantage, because someone I’d pretty much never heard of (Hansen fits that bill) got hold of the letter via FOI.

Its worth remembering that the FOI requst was never about the development of a B&B/Winery, if it was I would agree with you, and would expect the response to have contained greater detail.

I accept that I’ve been a tad snippy due to the cold today. The ACT Government claimed something. A document unearthed by the ACT Opposition suggests otherwise.

“This isn’t your business. What is your business is the decisions and actions of the Government – that’s what FOI is about. In this particular case, for this business’ thinking to be disclosed to Hansen, or you for that matter (or importantly to possible competitors), serves no public interest here but does potentially compromise their future interests. That is what section 43 is aimed at avoiding.”

Are you suggesting that this issue should not be discussed? I’d rather the law as passed by my parliamentary representatives, and interpreted by the courts, determine what my rights are. This particular affair is everyone’s business.

The company’s identity was largely protected. Get over that.

Certain views deserve discussion, even if it involves private finances. You can’t claim otherwise.

The FOI Act was in this instance seemingly used to protect the ACT Government – see http://the-riotact.com/?p=12172. That’s what this issue is all about.

This has nothing what so ever to do with commercial interests versus communtiy interests. Nor is it about a DA or the actions of this business. It’s about Government’s handling of the establishment of a health facility.

There are legal protections granted to the broarder community with respect to commerce impingeing on the rights of others – but a FOI application about documents concerning a drug and alcohol facility is not one of them, and nor should it be.

In this case the DA that would be a necesary precursor to the establishment of a B&B/Winery/Cellar door operation, involving appropriate notification and rights for public input/objection, is part of the planning process and you’d have every right to see all documents surrounding the DA, both through that process and via FOI (about the DA) should a DA ever eventuate.

However to suggest, as you do, that incidental private correspondence with the Government is anyone else’s business is nothing short of a gross violation of the rights of others. This isn’t your business. What is your business is the decisions and actions of the Government – that’s what FOI is about. In this particular case, for this business’ thinking to be disclosed to Hansen, or you for that matter (or importantly to possible competitors), serves no public interest here but does potentially compromise their future interests. That is what section 43 is aimed at avoiding.

These sort of FOIs are simply bottom trawling exercises, with a myriad of incidental documents being unearthed in the process, and to publish the private business of others in the way you suggest, is not freedom of information, its violating others’ rights.

YapYapYap said :

Section 43 goes to the point rasised by Hansen; the deletion of business information. It is not appropriate for Government to disclose infotmation provided to it in correspondence from an individual or business via an FOI applicatiojn from a third party. Put simply, FOI is about exposure of Governments’ actions, and not the private affairs of this business.

That you can’t see that establishes your credentials, as a loon.

Come off it. You can’t understand that my original point regarded the article claiming privacy as a reason for the exemptions.

Firstly, the developer’s identity, as you are plainly aware, was suppressed. No problem there.

Secondly, s. 43 is not about removing every last bit of information remotely concerning a business or its interests.

If the government was considering allowing this development, it’s in the public interest for the public to know the nature of the development. What do you think FOI is for? Do you reckon “I, BLANK, have plans to build a BLANK next to a BLANK for the purposes of BLANK,” is acceptable?

If so, that shows you’re a tool of this absurdly broad interpretation of protecting commercial interests over those of the community. I mean, if that’s acceptable, let’s just save a whole heap of time and money close up the FOI shop because such a release is useles. One should always start out with the intention to disclose, and then work back, not the other way around.

Sure – blank out dollar figures. Blank out names of people or details of research which could be worth something. But the nature of a business? That’s a joke. The Department should be condemned.

Section 43 goes to the point rasised by Hansen; the deletion of business information. It is not appropriate for Government to disclose infotmation provided to it in correspondence from an individual or business via an FOI applicatiojn from a third party. Put simply, FOI is about exposure of Governments’ actions, and not the private affairs of this business.

That you can’t see that establishes your credentials, as a loon.

… regarding Privacy, that is, at the very least. Debatable re s.43’s relevance in this case.

YapYapYap said :

Hansen, in his media relaease said: “Under FOI, the government released a document dated 9 July 2008 and addressed to the Chief Minister. The identifying details of the person sending the document were “properly blacked out. However, material details about the nature of the business were also censored.”

Hence my reference to section 43.

Who’s the loon now.

You are. Please read the ABC’s article:

“Ms Gallagher says she had nothing to do with the Freedom of Information documents but that the Health Department was right to black out the words for privacy reasons.”

I’m not making that crap up. And Hansen’s release raises issues I’d raised ie blacking out individual’s name good, blocking nature of business bad.

Hansen, in his media relaease said: “Under FOI, the government released a document dated 9 July 2008 and addressed to the Chief Minister. The identifying details of the person sending the document were “properly blacked out. However, material details about the nature of the business were also censored.”

Hence my reference to section 43.

Who’s the loon now.

YapYapYap said :

Where does it state that the exemption was made under section 41? In any event its clear the document is exempt under section 43. I smell a Liberal staffer in the-leak; an idiot of a Liberal staffer.

As I stated earlier, the article stated it was excempted under Privacy. Follow the link you loon.

YapYapYap said :

Where does it state that the exemption was made under section 41? In any event its clear the document is exempt under section 43. I smell a Liberal staffer in the-leak; an idiot of a Liberal staffer.

Be careful – don’t let your party political loyalties blind you to the issue.

It doesn’t really matter what section of the FOI Act any of us think was used. It’s what is said on the schedule, and I can’t see any formal reference in any of the linked documents. We can guess s.41, but that the other eventually information came out (probably under review) means that the exemptions didn’t hold up.

Where does it state that the exemption was made under section 41? In any event its clear the document is exempt under section 43. I smell a Liberal staffer in the-leak; an idiot of a Liberal staffer.

YapYapYap said :

PM, you might be on the right track; but probably not in this case.

Assuming the FOI request is Hanson’s, the FOI Act seems clear enough i.e. whatever someone has in mind for the adjoining site is not Hanson’s business. Section 43 says:

43 Documents relating to business affairs etc
(1) A document is an exempt document if its disclosure under this Act
would disclose—
(a) trade secrets; or
(b) any other information having a commercial value that would
be, or could reasonably be expected to be, destroyed or
diminished if the information were disclosed; or
(c) information (other than trade secrets or information to which
paragraph (b) applies) concerning a person in respect of his or
her business or professional affairs or concerning the business,
commercial or financial affairs of an organisation or
undertaking, being information—
(i) the disclosure of which would, or could reasonably be
expected to, unreasonably affect that person adversely in
respect of his or her lawful business or professional
affairs or that organisation or undertaking in respect of its
lawful business, commercial or financial affairs;…………..

YapYapYap – you’re an idiot (or ACT Health are idiots) because the blacked out stuff was exempt under section 41 – which actually reads:

Documents affecting personal privacy
(1) A document is an exempt document if its disclosure under this Act
would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information
about any person (including a deceased person).
(2) Subject to subsection (3), subsection (1) does not apply to a request
by a person for access to a document only because of the inclusion
in the document of matter relating to that person.
(3) Where—
(a) a request is made to an agency or Minister for access to a
document of the agency, or an official document of the
Minister, that contains information of a medical or psychiatric
nature concerning the person making the request; and
(b) it appears to the principal officer of the agency, or to the
Minister, as the case may be, that the disclosure of the
information to that person might be prejudicial to the physical
or mental health or wellbeing of that person;
the principal officer or Minister may direct that access to the
document, so far as it contains that information, that would
otherwise be given to that person is not to be given to that person
but is to be given instead to a doctor to be nominated by that person………..

This indeed smells like an embarrassing cover-up (or just plain incompetence)- or both!!! In any case, why the strong denials when the CT asked about it a few months ago???

Unless the rehab buildings are across the fence from the cellar door, there is no problem. But I can understand the owners of said vineyard being concerned – at least their objection might make sure the government thinks about where it builds things. Sensible plannign and development can easily deal with this.

The FOI access is the issue – and the misuse of the black texta. Anyone who has tried to access documents through FOI will know that some departments treat FOI documents like an opportunity to practice their kindergarten colouring in skills. It’s about time someone called them on this.

Is Mark Cormack the same Health CEO that signed off on the confidential ‘refurb’ of the Karalaika rehab house into a several storey building with a bus carpark etc?

Clown Killer10:09 am 10 Jun 09

But what could the problem be? How could they be considered incompatible? And lets be clear about this, we’re not talking about two suburban blocks here. The health facility will be a building to accommodate around 30 staff and patients nestled privately on a 200-odd hectare block and the winery and cellar door some serveral kilometres away.

Clown Killer said :

But that’s the whole bit I cant understand – why the hell is it a problem. How is a winery some kilometres away going to impact on the treatment of recovering alcoholics?

They are adjoining properties matey. That is where the stink lies, apart from a wee bit of community angst that there is to be rehab centre poked into their community.

Clown Killer9:34 am 10 Jun 09

But that’s the whole bit I cant understand – why the hell is it a problem. How is a winery some kilometres away going to impact on the treatment of recovering alcoholics?

Clown Killer said :

I’m still genuinely puzzled as to why there would be any sort of problem with having a medical facility next door to a vineyard / winery. If that is seriously the biggest issue then the project needs to be called in by the planning Minister and immediately approved so that the vexacious whingers can move onto some other meaningless bitch-fest.

Well considering the fact that the medical facility provides rehabilitation for alocoholics, I think having a winery within sight/smell wouldn’t be such a good idea, and may be a bit of hinderance to their recovery process. Mind you, there would a number of rather proficient amtuer sommeliers on tap when needed.

Clown Killer9:24 am 10 Jun 09

I’m still genuinely puzzled as to why there would be any sort of problem with having a medical facility next door to a vineyard / winery. If that is seriously the biggest issue then the project needs to be called in by the planning Minister and immediately approved so that the vexacious whingers can move onto some other meaningless bitch-fest.

Oops my bad, it seems to be other way round.

PM said :

The article mentions privacy as the reason for blocking out the words. That excuse doesn’t seem to fit. Blocking out the name of a developer might fit, but not the purpose or design of a building. What a stupid excuse!

PM I would actually be more concerned about why the Government thinks it appropriate to stick an alcohol rehabilitation centre next to vineyard that produces grog groover…

The FoI issues that have popped up in relation to this are probably a drop in the ocean compared to finding to nufty that came up with this place of inappropriate colocation of Government resource and private business concern.

Steady Eddie9:03 am 10 Jun 09

Reminds me of a German compilation album I bought back in the 1970s which contained “Smoke Get’s In Your Eyes”.

Syntax failure JB

Can he black out that apostrophe in the headline while he’s at it?

PM, you might be on the right track; but probably not in this case.

Assuming the FOI request is Hanson’s, the FOI Act seems clear enough i.e. whatever someone has in mind for the adjoining site is not Hanson’s business. Section 43 says:

43 Documents relating to business affairs etc
(1) A document is an exempt document if its disclosure under this Act
would disclose—
(a) trade secrets; or
(b) any other information having a commercial value that would
be, or could reasonably be expected to be, destroyed or
diminished if the information were disclosed; or
(c) information (other than trade secrets or information to which
paragraph (b) applies) concerning a person in respect of his or
her business or professional affairs or concerning the business,
commercial or financial affairs of an organisation or
undertaking, being information—
(i) the disclosure of which would, or could reasonably be
expected to, unreasonably affect that person adversely in
respect of his or her lawful business or professional
affairs or that organisation or undertaking in respect of its
lawful business, commercial or financial affairs;…………..

The article mentions privacy as the reason for blocking out the words. That excuse doesn’t seem to fit. Blocking out the name of a developer might fit, but not the purpose or design of a building. What a stupid excuse!

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.