Blaming the Privacy Act for government secrecy |
Claims of “privacy” are increasingly being used to obscure the reasons and costs behind the premature departure of senior public servants – eroding transparency and accountability.
Along with reflex claims of ‘commercial-in-confidence’ and ‘national security’, the Privacy Act is now being pathetically blamed for keeping citizens in the dark about the workings of their government.
When Adam Fennessy left his job as Secretary of the Commonwealth Agriculture Department, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) was not prepared to say if he had resigned or was sacked or if he had received a termination payment. That information PM&C claimed was protected by the Privacy Act.
The Public Service Commission (PSC) went along with this buffoonery but when the Commissioner, Gordon De Brouwer, was asked for the details at a Senate Estimates Committee he did the honourable thing and explained that yes, Fennessy was sacked and he was paid close to a million dollars for the inconvenience of not being allowed to serve out the five year term of his appointment.
Then, just before Christmas, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations announced that the Secretary of her department, Natalie James, was departing some 18 months short of the end of her term of appointment. The wording of the Minister’s media release was almost identical to that used for Fennessy, suggesting the existence of an AI-generated pro forma. The release on James didn’t explain if she had resigned or had been sacked, whether she........