本文翻译自澳洲独立媒体MichaelWest Medla

标题：莫里森第一次失去国家的信任：他们不想让你知道的故事

作者：Jommy Tee

“显然不在范围之内，”当Jommy Tee去寻找未来总理的第一份澳大利亚政府工作以争吵结束的原因时，该部门说。我们的记者发现，当总理寻求对其他人的行为进行调查时，有关他离开澳大利亚旅游局的信息却被挡在了门外。

在多次信息自由（FOI）申请后，迈克尔-韦斯特媒体（MWM）拒绝了与斯科特-莫里森2006年被解雇为澳大利亚旅游局总经理有关的历史法律意见摘要。

澳大利亚旅游局董事会于2006年7月召开会议，并在莫里森失去董事会（和当时的部长弗兰-贝利）的支持后讨论他的离职。

莫里森被解雇的官方原因从未公开过，但有很多猜测，包括一份价值数百万美元的广告合同的招标过程有问题；包括廉洁审计在内的文件消失了；以及与部长的个性冲突。

法律摘要是在另一个相关的信息公开请求被拒绝后才被发现的。

实质上，我们不得不围绕我们最初的请求进行另一次信息公开，以确定该文件的存在和其他感兴趣的文件。 这表明该国的信息自由法存在着系统性的缺陷。

最初的拒绝是在一个混乱的部门程序之后，这导致了八个月的延迟，包括堪培拉部门工作人员的封锁，以处理我们的请求。

漫长的拖延导致了信息专员的多次干预，以寻求加快处理速度。

最初的信息公开请求
我们最初的请求是在去年7月提交的，要求工业部提供以下文件。

2006年7月澳大利亚旅游局董事会会议的部门简报–该部门的秘书是澳大利亚旅游局董事会的成员。
给当时的部长Fran Bailey的任何相关部门简报。
贝利在议会回答有关通知的问题时提到的澳大利亚旅游局和斯科特-莫里森之间的协议/分离契约。
在信息专员的催促下，该部门于2月通知我们，它正在就我们的请求进行第三方咨询。

由于进一步的最后期限过期，该部门在2月份写信给信息专员。

“该部门后来意识到，所确定的单一文件实际上并不具有范围….。申请人要求提供与 “澳大利亚旅游局时任总经理斯科特-莫里森的离职/解职/终止职务 “有关的3类具体文件。

“虽然被确认的1份文件与这一主题有关系，但它显然不属于这3个类别中的任何一个，因此不是与请求有关的文件。”

该部门为错误地识别一份文件而道歉，并认为没有发现任何文件在范围内。

似乎令人难以置信的是，该部门，用它自己的话说，确定了一份文件，然后为一份 “明显不在范围内 “的文件进行了第三方咨询。

更令人费解的是，该部门就莫里森的离职向部长所作的简报，以及部长在议会中提到的协议书都无法找到。

我们现在已经向澳大利亚旅游局、工业部（当时的相关部门）和外交贸易部（现在的部门）提出了关于协议书的信息公开请求，但没有人能够找到上述协议书。

后续请求：不允许访问法律摘要
我们并不气馁，提交了信息自由申请，要求获取该部所说的 “与该主题有关 “的文件以及围绕相关第三方咨询的相关文件。

我们被拒绝查阅这份单一的文件–被描述为包含 “提供给联邦政府的法律建议的摘要”–理由是受到法律专业保密权的限制。

根据该部门的说法，披露该文件也会违反秘密获得的材料。

该部门还告诉我们，公布该文件将不合理地披露个人信息。 该部门补充说。

…..，获取有条件豁免的个人信息将违背公共利益，因为获取这些信息将构成对联邦官员隐私的侵犯。这一反对披露的因素是如此强大，以至于它超过了允许公众获取该个人信息可能带来的任何可见的好处。

我怎么了 …. 对自己的信息披露
MWM还围绕我们最初的请求所发生的咨询提交了一份信息公开请求。

由于类似的隐私和个人信息的原因，我们又被拒绝查阅与第三方咨询有关的11份文件。 这11份文件主要包括法律建议和附件；与第三方的电子邮件通信，以及与我们最初的主题有关的单一文件。

另外8份文件是在部分权限的基础上提供的。

你如何解决像斯科特这样的问题？
这个问题的答案包含在我们收到的部分编辑过的文件中，其中包括董事会议程、文件、董事会会议记录和工业部简报的编辑过的版本。

简而言之，答案是：你用法律意见武装自己，然后召开会议，然后重新召开同样的会议，然后为了慎重起见，你又重新召开会议。

在三天的时间里，从一个星期六开始，在下周再次召开会议–董事会免于在星期天处理这个问题。

根据部分删节的会议记录，决定莫里森命运的董事会会议于2006年7月29日星期六上午开始，并在一小时后休会。

之后，董事会于7月31日星期一下午再次召开会议，这次会议开了一个半小时。 然后在第二天下午再次召开会议–这次会议的时间不清楚。

考虑到会议的次数，处理斯科特问题及其后果是一件很艰巨的事情。

似乎只有两个实质性的议程项目。

议程项目2 “主席的介绍”
议程项目3–标题被删节了

工业部的简报标明 “ITR-in-confidence”，涵盖 “主席介绍”，但以个人隐私为由被删节。同样，关于议程项目3的部门简报也以个人隐私和机密信息为由被编辑。

与议程项目3有关的会议记录因法律建议和保密信息而被部分删节。

会议记录还记录了斯科特-莫里森在三次会议中都没有出席。

然而，即使经过编辑，出土的文件也是具有重要意义的历史记录–记录了一个政府机构的董事会何时解雇了其总经理，而该总经理后来成为了总理。

我们希望澳大利亚国家档案馆能够关注并保存相关材料，即使我们在这个历史关头无法查阅这些材料。

必须指出的是，当我们向澳大利亚旅游局提出类似要求时，我们自己通过FOI获得的一些文件以前被拒绝了–总理办公室直接干预了这项要求。

这批文件证实，总理办公室为拒绝我们之前向澳大利亚旅游局提出的信息公开请求而提供的建议是口头性质的–除了澳大利亚旅游局持有的一份我们被拒绝查阅的文件说明外，没有任何纸质线索。

我们不能告诉你我们如何解雇他们，但我们可以告诉你我们如何雇用他们
那次决定性的董事会会议的一份未经编辑的会议记录，比较详细地概述了董事会在招聘新的总经理时将遵循的程序。

我们之所以提到这一点，是因为在过去，我们向澳大利亚旅游局提出的信息公开请求被部分拒绝，因为披露总经理被解雇的过程会危及澳大利亚旅游局在未来解雇总经理的能力。

是的，部长会很自豪。

看来，披露拟聘任总经理的过程是不那么令人担忧的。

我们不能告诉你我们如何解雇他们，但我们可以告诉你我们如何雇用他们。

虽然斯科特-莫里森被解雇的原因可能永远不会被披露，但董事会的判断是他不适合该机构。

几周后，澳大利亚人民将有机会对斯科特-莫里森是否适合再次成为总理做出自己的判断。

作者：乔米-提Jommy Tee
Jommy Tee是一名长期的职业公务员，在政策制定领域工作了25年以上，同时也是一名对政治、时事和北欧黑帮感兴趣的独立研究人员。你可以在Twitter上关注Jommy @Jommy_Tee。

 

附英文版：

MichaelWest Medla

The first time Morrison lost the nation’s confidence: the story they don’t want you to know

By Jommy Tee

”Clearly not within scope,” said the department when Jommy Tee went on a Freedom of Information hunt for reasons a future prime minister’s first Australian government job ended in acrimony. Our correspondent found that while the Prime Minister seeks inquiries into the conduct of others, information about his departure from Tourism Australia is kept out of sight.

A summary of historical legal advice associated with Scott Morrison’s sacking as managing director of Tourism Australia in 2006 has been denied to Michael West Media (MWM) following multiple Freedom of Information (FOI) requests.

The Tourism Australia Board met in July 2006 and to discuss Morrison’s departure after he had lost the support of the board (and then minister, Fran Bailey).

The official reason for Morrison’s dismissal has never been made public, though has been plenty of speculation ranging from a dodgy tender process for a multimillion-dollar advertising contract;  vanishing documents including a probity audit; and personality clashes with the minister.

The legal summary was only discovered after another related FOI request was refused.

In essence we had to run another FOI on the communication around our original request to ascertain the document’s existence and other documents of interest.  This points to a systemic failing in the country’s FOI laws.

The original refusal followed a shambolic departmental process which resulted in an eight-month delay, including Covid lockdowns of Canberra-based departmental staff, in processing our request.

The lengthy delay resulted in the multiple interventions from the Information Commissioner seeking to speed up the process.

The original FOI request

Our original request, submitted last July, sought the following documentation from the Department of Industry:

• Departmental briefing for the July 2006 Tourism Australia Board meeting – the secretary of the department being a member of the Tourism Australia Board;
• Any associated departmental briefing to the then minister, Fran Bailey;
• The deed of agreement/separation between Tourism Australia and Scott Morrison that Bailey referred to in parliament when responding to question on notice.

After the gee-up from the Information Commissioner, the department advised us in February that it was undertaking third-party consultation on our request.

As further deadlines expired, the department wrote to the Information Commissioner in February:

“The department has since realised that the single document identified is in fact not with scope …. The applicant asked for 3 specific categories of documents relating to the ‘separation/dismissal/termination of then Tourism Australia’s managing director Scott Morrison’.

”While 1 document that was identified bore a relationship to this topic, it is clearly not within any of the 3 categories and is so is not a document relevant to the request.”

The department apologised for misidentifying a document, and opined that no documents were found to be in scope.

It seems incredible that the department, to use its own words, identified a document and then undertook third-party consultation for a document that was “clearly not within scope”.

Even more perplexing, is that departmental briefing to the minister on Morrison’s departure, or the deed of agreement that the minister referred to in parliament could not be found.

We have now lodged FOI requests for the deed of agreement with Tourism Australia, the Department of Industry (the relevant portfolio department at the time) and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (the current portfolio department) and no one has been able to locate the said deed.

The follow-up requests: no access allowed to the legal summary

Undeterred we submitted FOI requests for the document the Department stated “bore a relationship to the topic” and associated documents around relevant third party consultations.

We were denied access to the single document  – described as containing “a summary of legal advice provided to the Commonwealth government” – on the grounds of being subject to legal professional privilege.

According to the department the disclosure of the document would also breach material obtained in confidence.

The department also advised us that the release of the document would unreasonably disclose personal information.  The department added:

…..access to the conditionally exempt personal information would be contrary to the public interest, as access would amount to an invasion of the Commonwealth officer’s privacy. This factor against disclosure is of such strength that it outweighs any perceived benefit that there may be in granting public access to that personal information.

What about me …. FOI-ing ourselves

MWM also submitted an FOI request around the consultation that occurred with our original request.

 

We were denied access to a further 11 documents associated with the third party consultation again for similar reasons of privacy, and personal information.  Those 11 documents consisted predominantly of legal advice and attachments; an email correspondence with the third party, and the single document that a bore a relationship to our original topic.

An additional eight documents were provided on the basis of partial access.

How do you solve a problem like Scott?

The answer to that question is contained in the partially redacted documents we received, which included redacted versions of the board agenda, paper, minutes of the board meeting and briefing for the Industry Department.

In short the answer is:  you are arm yourself with legal advice and then you convene a meeting, and then you reconvene the same meeting, and then for good measure you reconvene it again.

All over the course of three days, starting on a Saturday and reconvening the next week – the board spared themselves from dealing with the issue on a Sunday.

According to the partially redacted minutes, the board meeting that sealed Morrison’s fate began on a Saturday morning, July 29, 2006, and adjourned after an hour.

The board then reconvened on Monday, July 31, in the late afternoon, this time for an hour and a half.  It then again reconvened the next day in the late afternoon – the length of this meeting is not clear.

Given the number of meetings, dealing with the Scott problem and its fallout was an arduous affair.

There appeared to be only two substantive agenda items:

• Agenda Item 2  “Chairman’s Introduction”
• Agenda Item 3 – the title being redacted

Briefing for the Department of Industry marked “ITR-in-confidence” covering the “Chairman’s Introduction” was redacted on personal privacy grounds. Similarly departmental briefing on Agenda Item 3 was also redacted on personal privacy and confidential information grounds.

The minutes of the meeting pertaining to Agenda Item 3 were partially redacted on the grounds of legal advice and confidential information.

The minutes also record that Scott Morrison was not present at any of three iterations of the meeting.

Nonetheless even with redactions the documents unearthed are historical records of significance – records of when the board of a government agency, sacked its managing director, who would in later life become Prime Minister.

We hope that the National Archives of Australia are paying attention and preserve the relevant material, even if we cannot access them at this juncture in history.

It must be pointed out that some of the documents we obtained from FOI-ing ourselves were previously denied to us when we put a similar request to the Tourism Australia – a request where the Prime Minister’s Office directly intervened. 

The current batch of documents confirm that advice provided by the PMO, to deny our previous FOI request with Tourism Australia was of a verbal nature – no paper trail exists aside from a file note held by Tourism Australia which we were denied access to.

We can’t tell you how we fire them, but we can tell you how we hire ‘em

An unredacted part of the minutes from that fateful board meeting outline, in some detail, the process the board would follow in recruiting a new managing director.

We only mention this because in the past, our FOI requests to Tourism Australia, were in part denied because revealing how a managing director was sacked would jeopardise Tourism Australia’s capacity to sack a managing director in the future.

Yes Minister would be proud.

It appears the process for revealing how a managing director is proposed to be hired is less of a concern.

A case we can’t tell you how we fire them, but we can tell you how we hire ‘em.

Although the reasons may never be revealed as to why Scott Morrison was given the boot, the board cast judgment that he was an inappropriate fit for the agency.

In a few weeks, the people of Australia will get the opportunity to make their own judgment as to the fitness of Scott Morrison to become prime minister again.

 

Jommy Tee

Jommy Tee is a long-time career public servant, having worked in the policy development field for 25+ years as well as an independent researcher interested in politics, current affairs, and Nordic noir. You can follow Jommy on Twitter @Jommy_Tee.