Australia’s Immigration Department in breach of Freedom Of Information Act over Nauru documents

NAURU – Australia’s immigration department has been “freezing” the release of documents about asylum seekers at in its offshore detention centre on Nauru, according to a internal email, suggesting it has been deliberately breaching freedom of information laws.

In an email sent by accident to Guardian Australia, an official at the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, says there are “risks” to the apparent policy and asks for it to reconsidered.

The Greens’ immigration spokesman, Nick McKim said the emails showed the department had “gone rogue”.

The shadow immigration minister, Shayne Neumann, said it showed the immigration minister, Peter Dutton, was mismanaging his department.

The email, sent by Ian Campbell, the immigration department’s freedom of information officer, asks two other officials: “We note that our Nauru¬-related FOI cases (ie summary incident reports, health data set and several others) continue to be on¬ hold pending confirmation from you about when we can proceed to finalise them.

“Are you able to please give us an update/indication of when you consider we will be able to proceed? There are some risks associated with not proceeding these FOI requests.

“Rather than freezing the processing of these cases for several more weeks or months, we might be better off releasing the documents sooner, with the Nauru information fully exempted under grounds of international relations. This is something we’d want to discuss with Susan (Mathew) given the concerns previously expressed about such an approach.”

Under Australia’s freedom of information laws, strict timeframes are set out for processing requests for information, and there is evidence that the department has exceeded the timeframe for processing a number of requests made by Guardian Australia.

Guardian Australia’s request for healthcare data on Nauru has been delayed for processing since July this year.

In another case, a request for the child protection panel report on Nauru has also been delayed.

A freedom-of-information officer previously said the department has committed to releasing it by the end of October.

The secretary of the department, Michael Pezzullo, has been in possession of the report for several months.

There has been renewed focus on the asylum seekers and refugees held on Nauru by Australia after the Guardian’s publication of the Nauru files, which detailed thousands of incident reports from the island’s detention facility until October 2015.

A Senate inquiry is now under way into serious allegations of abuse and assault on Nauru and the department is facing increasing pressure to release information about incident reports it holds, as well as for healthcare information for asylum seekers and refugees on the island.

Neumann and McKim urged Australia’s information commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim, to examine the immigration department’s actions.

Neumann said Dutton had been “caught out” in the revelation.

“Peter Dutton might not like what he finds in these files but that doesn’t give him the right to withhold the information from the Australian public,” Neumann said.

“I’m sure the information commissioner will take a keen interest in any evidence that suggests a deliberate strategy by the Turnbull government to withhold information from the FOI process.”

McKim said the email showed what appeared to be a “deliberate breach” of freedom of information laws.

“This email is an extraordinary admission of the department’s culture of secrecy and obfuscation of people trying to find out the truth,” he said. “In many respects, the department has gone rogue and it is long past time for the government to bring it to heel.

“The government’s reasons for secrecy are clear – their policies have failed in humanitarian, financial and logistical terms, and they simply don’t want people finding that out.”

The immigration department’s FOI unit has a fraught relationship with the rest of the department. Decision-making powers have been stripped from many of its officers and are now made by other officials. As a consequence, the unit often doesn’t have the power to see the processing of requests through, the Guardian says.

A spokesman from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection said: “There has been no freeze of FOI requests in relation to Nauru; the email you reference reflected a misunderstanding of the process and was an internal communication seeking advice in relation to specific ongoing requests.”

The department’s response did not address whether it accepted it had breached freedom of information laws.

Dutton did not respond to requests for comment.

The manager of the department’s freedom of information unit, Linda Rossiter, denied there was a deliberate freeze and said there had been a “misunderstanding” in the email.

“There isn’t a freeze and it’s a misunderstanding,” Rossiter told the Guardian. “There’s no freeze on the processing of requests. Requests are dealt with on a case by case basis.”

The office of the Australian information commissioner has the power to investigate the handling of freedom of information requests. It also has sweeping investigative powers and can conduct own motion investigations into the actions of government agencies.

The immigration department has faced several investigations into the handling of information requests. The office conducted an investigation that identified a range of serious flaws in 2012.

A separate internal review commissioned by the department and undertaken by Robert Cornall also found there was a lack of efficient management of FOI by the department.

A spokeswoman for the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner said: “The Australian information commissioner expects Australian government agencies bound by the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to meet the statutory timeframes in relation to processing FOI requests.

“While the act allows for extensions of time in certain circumstances, the commissioner would expect those extensions are only requested when there is a substantive reason. Where we receive requests by agencies for extensions we review them in relation to the specific circumstances.

“In the last 12 months we have received a small number of extension of time requests from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. Not all have been granted.

“The commissioner monitors FOI processing within Australian government agencies and will conduct investigations when appropriate.”

- Guardian