Office of the Information Commissioner

The Information Act (NT) regulates three

aspects of government information
management:

• Freedom of Information (FOI)

• Privacy Protection
• Records Management

The Information Commissioner is the

independent officer appointed to oversee
the FOI and Privacy Protection provisions
of the Act.

The functions of the Office of the Information Commissioner are —

• Awareness – promoting awareness and understanding of FOI and Privacy

Protection in the community and in the public sector
• General inquiries – helping people to exercise their rights, and agencies
to administer the schemes
• Complaints – responding to formal complaints about FOI decisions and
interference with privacy
• Policy assistance/input – helping government organisations to recognise
and deal with Privacy and FOI issues that need to be addressed as part of
policy and legislative development and review
• Investigations/applications – carrying out other Information Act
functions, eg deciding applications for grants of authorisation, considering
draft codes of conduct and conducting privacy audits
• Improving our service – increasing the availability of resources on FOI
and Privacy, and our ability to carry out our functions, through staff
development, regular contact with relevant organisations and monitoring of
developments in the Territory and elsewhere
• Managing the Office – undertaking the many tasks required to make sure
that the Office runs efficiently and is accountable for its actions and the
public resources it uses.

iii
 Commissioner activities - Overview

Highlights 2005-06
• 45 presentations given on FOI and Privacy in Alice Springs,
Katherine, Nhulunbuy and Darwin.
• 17 new or revised guidelines or similar publications published to
promote understanding of the Act.
• Conduct of an extensive television and radio promotional campaign
throughout the Territory.
• Over 500 hours spent giving policy assistance to public sector
organisations, particularly in relation to privacy issues.
• Joint presentation program conducted with Northern Territory
Archives Service.
• Significant rise in the number of FOI complaints received.

Performance 2005-06
Performance Measure Outcome Target Outcome
2004-05 2005-06 2005-06
Awareness and training presentations 41 30 45
Guidelines and similar publications 20 16 17
issued/updated
Complaints and applications addressed 16 20 36
General inquiries 343 360 319
Hours spent on policy assistance 750 502
Complaints resolved informally 66% 100%
Complaints unresolved at end of year1 20% 67%
FOI complaints finalised within 120 days of 60% 88%
acceptance
Privacy complaints finalised within 120 days 60% 75%
of acceptance
Agency satisfaction with performance 80% 94%
Proportion of general inquiries response 90% 98%
within 1 day

(1) This high proportion is largely due to an influx of FOI complaints in the later part of the
reporting period. Of FOI complaints outstanding at 30 June 2006, approximately 2/3
were received in the last 4 months of the period.
(2) A performance measure for Community satisfaction with performance was included in
the Budget Papers for 2005-06. The limited number of potential respondents to a
planned survey meant that survey results would have been of little value. A more
broadly-based assessment tool will be implemented in the next period.

iv
 Public Sector activities - Overview

Freedom of Information
In all, 292 initial FOI access applications were lodged with public sector
organisations. This compares with 394 applications made in 2004-05 and 284
made in 2003-04.

The reduction in applications made in this year is largely attributable to a

reduction in FOI applications to NT Police, Fire & Emergency Services
(NTPFES) which diverted requests for information to administrative access
schemes. There has not been a significant decrease in the number of people
seeking information from the NTPFES but many requests are now dealt with
under simpler, more focussed access schemes. A breakdown of access
applications by organisation appears in Appendix 2.

Other points of interest in relation to applications made or dealt with during the
year are:

• 49% were made to one organisation, the NTPFES

• 63% of applications across government were for access to personal
information about the applicant (compared to 68% in the previous year)
• overall, access was granted in full to 18,763 pages, with access
granted in full or in part to 78% of pages sought (the same proportion
as in the previous year)
• the total amount of application and processing fees charged by
organisations was $22,548, compared to $10,476 in the previous year
and $22,685 in 2003-04.

Nineteen applications were made for internal review of agency decisions,

with 7 initial decisions being varied or revoked.

Twenty-three formal complaints were made to the Information Commissioner

in relation to FOI decisions, compared with 7 in the previous year.

Privacy Protection
Five formal complaints were made or referred to the Commissioner about
alleged breaches of privacy. The Office also received numerous informal
inquiries from organisations in relation to privacy issues raised by the conduct
of their functions, and requests for assistance in developing or reviewing
documentation, policies, procedures and legislation. No details are available
on numbers of privacy-related complaints made to public sector organisations.

v
vi
Chapter 1
Recent Issues and Developments

Privacy in Balance
A fundamental tenet of our democratic system is respect for each of us as an
individual. This involves recognition that information about us is intrinsic to
our make-up — and that each of us deserves to have his or her individual
privacy respected and protected. This right to privacy is recognised as a
fundamental human right in international charters and instruments.

However, it is also fundamental to our democracy that we live in a community

and benefit from living within a community. As part of that community life we
share responsibilities and information so that the community can function
effectively. But living in a community does not mean that we must forfeit our
identity or rights as individuals.

So when we talk about privacy protection and privacy rights, we are really
talking about achieving a balance between our individual interests and our
interests as part of the broader community.

The privacy protection scheme in the Information Act implicitly recognises that
sometimes information must be collected about individuals to allow
government to function. But it also provides that collection of information must
be limited to what is necessary for those functions, and that the personal
information that is collected must be handled with care.

Why Privacy?
In an era of technology and terror, there are increasing pressures to collect,
share and manipulate personal information. In justifying intrusion into our
lives, some people ask,

“Who cares about privacy if you have done nothing wrong?”

For my part, this is the wrong question. As noted above, individual privacy is
recognised as a fundamental human right. As individuals we live in a
community but have rights and expectations that our privacy should not be
intruded on except to the extent that we consent or that is necessary for the
functioning of our democratic society. The starting point should be to ask
whether and to what extent use or disclosure of personal information in a
particular case is justified.

But for those who raise the question, there is plenty of evidence to show that
individuals can suffer real harm of many varieties through disclosure of
personal information, without ever having done wrong.

1
The potential for harm is not limited to particular types of information. Nor is
the potential easily identifiable for any one individual. To illustrate the breadth
of potential harm, I give some examples below.

Would you want the whole world to know?

I may be successful now but I failed at school.

I just won Lotto.

I blew the whistle on corruption at work.

I am an Afghan refugee.

I have a genetic disposition to dementia.

I am Jewish.

I used to work as a prostitute.

I used to work for the Tax Office.

Harm
Virtually every day we read of a new case of identity theft or fraud. Some
thieves may improperly obtain personal information in order to assume the
identity of a person. The harm here is often financial loss. But it can also give
rise to damage to reputation, embarrassment and frustration at having to
spend time, effort and money to set the situation straight.

Others may steal information in order to pass it on to those who are willing to
pay for it. Creditors, insurers, lawyers, estranged partners and even
journalists have all been willing to pay investigators to obtain personal details
without close attention to the lawfulness or propriety of the means by which
they were obtained.1 The harm inherent in these practices can range from
financial loss and harassment up to danger to physical safety in the most
serious cases.

On another level, the disclosure of personal information may simply be of

nuisance value. Anyone who has been constantly interrupted by telephone
marketers while preparing an evening meal for hungry children will appreciate
that this intrusion, enabled by access to personal contact details, is by no
means to be discounted lightly.
1
For example, see a recent report by the UK Information Commissioner’s Office, What Price
Privacy? The unlawful trade in confidential information (May 2006).

2
At its most serious, some Australians have themselves suffered gravely at the
hands of authoritarian regimes because of disclosure of personal information
about them. Many more Australians are descendants of people who have
suffered similar fates because governments have known (or simply assumed)
details of personal information such as ethnic background, political opinion, or
even educational status.2

But there is also the potential for harm arising to the day-to-day relationships
that we share as individuals who live and function within a community. All our
relationships - with family, friends, employers, workmates, business
associates, clients and government - can be adversely affected by disclosure
of personal information.

It is fundamental to our status as individuals that we choose what information

about us to disclose to others. For example, we may share close
relationships with family members but we do not necessarily share everything
with them. Perhaps a daughter may not want her mother to know that she
has had an abortion or is on the Pill. A son may be concerned not to let his
father know his views on homosexuality, legalisation of marihuana or even
how he votes. We exercise the same sort of control with friends and social
acquaintances. A person may not want to complicate her relationship with a
friend by disclosing her views for or against the Iraq War, or the fact that she
smoked while pregnant with a child.

Disclosure of information in such cases can cause real damage to a

relationship that could take years to mend. A family might be torn apart over
an issue. Good friends might never speak again. While the person has
committed no crime, harm might still flow because we live in a community in
which people can and do make subjective judgements based on any number
of factors.

The same holds true in other spheres of life. In employment, in business, in

obtaining goods and services, and in dealings with government, relationships
and outcomes can be influenced by what others know (or think they know)
about a person. A job may be lost, a spot on a project team not offered, a
contract not granted, a benefit reduced or withheld on the basis of personal
information.

In some cases, such decisions will be based on assessment of relevant and

accurate information. However, it would be foolish to suggest that decisions
in any sphere are never made with reference to inaccurate information or
taking into account irrelevant information. And real harm can flow even if the
person never finds out that he or she has lost out because of it.

In other cases, the harm suffered may be limited to fear and apprehension of
the effect that disclosure of information might have. Injury to feelings and
humiliation can themselves generate significant harm to individuals.

2
Some cogent examples may be found in a speech by the former Victorian Privacy Commissioner,
Paul Chadwick, entitled The Value of Privacy (May 2006), pages 16-21.

3
 Would you want the whole world to know?
I arrived in Australia as a ‘boat person’.

My Doctor says I need treatment for my mental condition.

I am a Police informant.

I am gay.

I attempted suicide when I was suffering depression.

I have been on the dole for 2 years.

I oppose abortion.

I support abortion on demand.

There is no way of itemising what personal information will be regarded as

most sensitive to each individual. Or what information may cause harm to a
relationship with another person in a particular case. For some, a particular
piece of information may cause no concern whatsoever. For others its
disclosure may cause embarrassment and significant damage.

So there are many ways in which use and disclosure of personal information
can cause harm to individuals whether or not the information discloses any
wrongdoing by the person. From the disruption of personal and social
relationships to denial of fundamental rights, the negative effects of disclosure
can range from annoying to devastating.

While we live in a community we must accept that some personal information

about us will be collected and used. But we equally have a right to expect that
our privacy will be respected and protected by those who become custodians
of it through voluntary or mandatory acquisition.

Government organisations must be acutely aware of the need to respect

individual privacy and take adequate steps to ensure that they collect personal
information only where collection is necessary and appropriate, and that they
adequately protect personal information that must be collected.

4
 Information Privacy Principles - Summary

Collection (IPPs 1, 7, 8, 10)

Personal information—

• can only be collected if it is necessary for the activities of the organisation;

• must be collected in a lawful, fair and not unreasonably intrusive way;
• must be collected from the person, if that is reasonable and practicable.

There are special limits on collection of sensitive information, identifying information

and unique identifying codes (eg., driver’s licence numbers).

Use and Disclosure (IPPs 2, 7, 9)

Personal information can be used or disclosed for the purpose for which it was
collected. The IPPs limit the other purposes (secondary purposes) for which
personal information can be used or disclosed within the organisation or outside the
organisation. Use or disclosure for secondary purposes is allowed—

• if the person consents;

• if it is required or authorised by law;
• for some purposes related to the primary purpose;
• for some law enforcement and health and safety purposes.

There are also limits on transferring information outside the Territory and on use and
disclosure of unique identifying codes (eg., driver’s licence numbers).

Management (IPPs 3, 4)

Each organisation must take reasonable steps to —

• ensure that personal information is accurate, complete and up to date;

• protect personal information from misuse and loss and from unauthorised access,
modification or disclosure;
• destroy or permanently de-identify personal information if it is no longer needed
for any purpose.

Openness (IPPs 1, 5 and 6)

Each organisation must—

• make available on request its privacy policies and details about personal
information held by it;
• take reasonable steps to ensure that each individual is aware of certain
information at or before the time personal information about them is collected
(eg., the purpose for collection);
• allow people to seek access to personal information held about them;
• allow people to seek correction of inaccurate, incomplete or out-of-date
information.

5
Amendments to the Information Act
During the reporting year, the NT Legislative Assembly amended the
Information Act with effect from 1 July 2006 (Information Amendment Act
2006).

The most significant change was to amend section 9 to make it clear that, in
the event of inconsistency with other Territory legislation, the Information Act
will prevail. This will be the case whether the other law was made before or
after the amendment.

This amendment will have its greatest impact in relation to the FOI provisions
of the Act. Except where a basis for refusal is expressly included in the
Information Act, other laws will not form a basis for refusing access. FOI
applicants and administrators should be able to look to the Information Act to
provide guidance on all questions relating to access.

The amendment will not affect existing exceptions in the Information Privacy
Principles that permit actions required or authorised by law, eg, use or
disclosure required or authorised by law, and collection of sensitive
information required by law.

In a related amendment, the secrecy provision exemption in section 48 has

also been limited, so that it provides exemption only in respect of a discrete
number of secrecy provisions that are listed in Schedule 1 to the Act.

Much of the information that continues to be protected under section 48 is

identifying information about individuals, eg, parties to adoptions, human
tissue donors and recipients, victims of sexual assault, and subjects of child
protection orders. Financial information provided for tax purposes is also
protected.

There are two new exemptions. Section 54(ca) protects places of scientific,
cultural or historical significance, eg, sites of meteorite strikes or fossil finds
that may be damaged if their location is disclosed.

The new section 49A exempts information obtained or created in the course of
investigations, audits or inquiries by the Ombudsman, the Auditor-General,
the Health and Community Services Complaints Commissioner and specially
appointed commissions of inquiry.

This exemption is not subject to a public interest balancing test, although it will
not extend to relevant information in the hands of the organisation subject to
investigation, audit or inquiry.

6
Chapter 2
Application and complaint processes

Time taken for FOI decisions

A small number of inquiries and concerns have come to my attention
regarding delay on the part of organisations in responding to FOI applications.
While the low number of inquiries does not suggest that there is a major
systemic problem, it is important for each public sector organisation to keep a
close watch on its FOI processes to ensure that it complies with its statutory
obligations in a timely manner.

30 day limit
Under s.17 of the Information Act, a public sector organisation that receives
an application must deal with the application as promptly and efficiently, and
as fairly and openly, as is reasonably possible. Section 19 sets a maximum
time of 30 days for an organisation to consider an application and notify the
applicant of its decision.

The Act allows for that time to be extended in certain circumstances. For
example, if an organisation gives an estimate of processing fee, the clock
stops while the organisation awaits confirmation that the applicant wishes to
proceed.

In addition, an organisation may extend the time if an application relates to a

large amount of information, or if extensive searches or consultations are
required. But such cases should be viewed as the exception rather than the
rule.

Need to allocate sufficient resources

It is important that organisations allocate sufficient resources to ensure that
FOI applications are finalised within the 30 day period in the usual case. The
precise extent of resources required for each organisation will depend on the
level of demand which varies significantly between organisations.

Applicant’s right to seek review

It is also important that applicants be aware that they can take matters further
if there is undue delay. If the 30 day period has passed (or the extended
period in an appropriate case), an applicant is entitled to seek internal review
by the organisation on the basis that access is deemed to have been refused.
If the time limit for internal review passes they are then entitled to complain to
the Information Commissioner.

7
Having said that, reasonable forbearance on the part of an applicant is
welcomed by organisations. In some cases, there are good reasons for delay,
and a positive approach from the applicant is much appreciated.

We welcome feedback from anyone who has experienced significant delay in

the processing of an FOI application so that we can move to address the
issue with the relevant organisation or organisations.

Information Commissioner complaint process

Concerns have also been raised about the time taken to finalise a small
number of complaints to my Office.

For the most part, complaints to the Information Commissioner have been
resolved informally. However, experience to date in some cases where
agreement between the parties could not be reached, suggests that more
timely resolution would be facilitated by a more flexible complaints process.

The current complaint scheme is essentially the same for FOI and Privacy
complaints. It has four mandatory stages — Acceptance, Investigation and
prima facie decision, Mediation and Hearing.

The legislation sets out a mandatory process that includes requirements to—
• make a prima facie decision following investigation – s.110;
• conduct a mediation and issue a certificate – s.111; and
• hold a hearing – s.113.

Informal approach – Limiting burden on parties

The key focus of the Office of the Information Commissioner is on informal
resolution of complaints. This means that, in practical terms, the informal
resolution phase of a complaint starts on the day a complaint is received. For
some complaints, it may even have started prior to that time through informal
discussions with a complainant and public sector organisation.

It is not uncommon for complaints to be resolved even before a decision on

‘acceptance’ is necessary. Attempts at informal resolution may continue
throughout the ‘acceptance’ and ‘investigation’ stages.

Often the Office will express a preliminary view about issues in dispute. A
preliminary view is not a decision. It is not a prima facie decision under s.110.
It is a tentative view about the issues that may need to be addressed and the
possible strengths and weaknesses in a party’s case. It is intended to put
parties (including public sector organisations) in a better position to
realistically assess their prospects for success, and to identify issues that may
need to be addressed if the complaint were to proceed to a formal
determination.

8
In this and other ways, the Office takes an active role in narrowing the issues
in dispute and informing the relevant party of the case that must be met. This
can often be done without the need to call on the other party for submissions
or other significant input. This approach is designed to limit the need for
parties to input their own resources to meet arguments that have inherent
weaknesses.

Formal requirements
While further options for resolution may be explored at later stages (and may
be pursued even at the hearing stage), there are cases where the issues in
dispute, and the respective positions of the parties, have crystallised prior to
the end of the ‘investigation’ stage.

Once a party has been advised of, and has not accepted, the Office’s
preliminary view, the further provision of a prima facie decision is likely to
have limited prospects of changing the party’s position.

Similarly, once the parties’ diametrically opposed views are firmed, mandatory
mediation will often be perceived as a barrier to obtaining a “ruling” in their
favour from the Commissioner, rather than an opportunity to change their
position.

There will therefore be a number of cases in which making a prima facie

decision and proceeding with mandated formal mediation will achieve little
beyond delaying the ultimate decision and using up the resources of the
Office and the parties.

Where a matter cannot be resolved by agreement, the present requirement is

for a hearing under Division 2. Experience suggests that, in many and
probably most cases, it is in the interests of the parties to proceed on the
basis of written submissions and evidence, without the need for a formal
hearing along the lines suggested by Division 2. Dealing with matters ‘on the
papers’ will usually be less threatening, less time consuming, cheaper, less
likely to require the engagement of legal representatives and, if legal
assistance is ultimately engaged by a party, cheaper in terms of legal costs.

The Office endeavours to facilitate such an approach to the extent possible

within the parameters of Division 2 but the current legislative structure places
some limitations on its ability to do so.

Rationale for existing structure

The complaint structure in the Information Act appears to have been adopted
with minor alterations from the existing structure in the Anti-Discrimination Act.
I make no comment on its suitability for the purposes of that Act.

9
One argument that might be put forward for the prima facie decision
requirement is that it protects respondents against the need to pour resources
into defence of an ill-founded complaint at a full hearing.

However, I suggest that that end would be achieved just as well, and in fact
considerably better, by a flexible approach that requires fairness to be
afforded to the parties but recognises that different cases require different
approaches.

More flexibility needed

Without doubt, the focus of the Office should be on informal resolution. It
should also be on limiting the resources that the parties and the Office must
expend on resolving the dispute.

However, that end is not achieved by a ‘one size fits all’ approach. There is a
need to allow the Office to assess each case on its merits and to structure the
procedures to be adopted accordingly.

Key aims, like informality, timeliness, and efficiency can be emphasised in

legislation without mandating a detailed procedural structure.

Approach in other jurisdictions

The two other jurisdictions in Australia that have an Information Commissioner
model have adopted a flexible approach of the type discussed above. Neither
scheme mandates a procedure. There is no absolute requirement to conciliate
or mediate. There is no requirement to produce an interim or prima facie
decision. There is no requirement to conduct a formal hearing. The conduct
of proceedings is essentially at the discretion of the Commissioner.
Procedures can be tailored to meet the needs of the particular case.

Significant aspects of those schemes include —

• proceedings are to be conducted with as little formality and technicality,
and with as much expedition, as the requirements of the Act and a
proper consideration of the issues permits;
• the Commissioner is not bound by the rules of evidence;
• the Commissioner may obtain information in such manner as the
Commissioner thinks fit;
• the Commissioner may proceed without a formal hearing;
• the Commissioner may direct that submissions be in writing;
• the Commissioner may take steps to resolve a case by conciliation or
mediation.

These provisions give guidance to the Commissioner about the approach that
should be adopted to resolution of complaints, while allowing the
Commissioner to tailor the approach to meet the circumstances of each case.

10
In my view, this approach provides the best model for timely and effective
resolution of FOI and Privacy complaints.

Limit on personal involvement of the Commissioner

The approach discussed above is further complicated by s.128 of the Act
which bars the Commissioner from conducting a hearing if he or she has
personally —

• conducted an inquiry or investigation into the complaint;

• been involved in discussions or negotiations in respect of a complaint;
or
• conducted a mediation in respect of a complaint.

In a small office, in a situation where the public sector and the community is
being introduced to novel legislation, there are circumstances in which this
limitation on personal involvement by the Commissioner prior to hearing will
significantly hinder the progress of a complaint.

There is already a wealth of case law governing the conduct of tribunals in

relation to bias and the apprehension of bias. To the extent that it limits
involvement by the Commissioner beyond the restrictions that currently exist
under the general law, I can discern no good reason for this additional
statutory provision. Such a limitation, particularly in the context of a small
office, is unwarranted and unduly restricts the flexibility and efficiency of the
Office.

Recommended changes
For the above reasons, I recommend the following changes —
• Removing the absolute requirement for a prima facie decision;
• Removing the absolute requirement for a mediation stage following
investigation;
• Removing the absolute requirement for a hearing;
• Removing the statutory limitation on personal involvement by the
Information Commissioner;
• Emphasising the importance of informality and timeliness;
• Expressly stating the need for the Commissioner to act fairly.

11
12
Chapter 3
Information Commissioner–Functions/activities

“… an independent officeholder, the Information

Commissioner, to oversee the freedom of
information and privacy provisions of this Act”
Information Act, Objects, s.3(1)(c)

Office functions and activities

The Office of the Information Commissioner has two broad roles. We:

• promote awareness and understanding of Freedom of Information

(FOI) and Privacy Protection in the Northern Territory community and in
the public sector; and
• deal with FOI and Privacy complaints, and other applications under the
Information Act.

This Chapter describes our structure and funding and then goes on to talk
about our functions and activities during 2005-06 under seven headings. The
approximate proportion of time the Office spent on conducting each function
during the year is set out opposite the function below:

Function Time spent

1.1 Awareness 25%

1.2 Policy Assistance/Input 20%
1.3 Complaints 20%
1.4 General Inquiries 5%
1.5 Investigations/applications 5%
1.6 Improving our service 5%
1.7 Managing the Office 20%

13
Office structure and funding
The inaugural Information Commissioner for the Northern Territory is Peter
Shoyer. He was appointed for a 5 year term from 1 July 2003.

The staff of the Office in 2005-06 comprised a Complaints and Policy Officer
(AO7), an Assistant to the Commissioner (AO4) and a part-time Legal
Research Officer (AO2).

The Office is located at Level 7, 9-11 Cavenagh Street, Darwin. Contact

details for the Office appear on the final page of this Report.

The Office is collocated with the Anti-Discrimination Commission (the ADC).

In addition to sharing administrative costs, the Office contributed to the costs
of an Office Manager employed by the ADC.

Total direct expenditure by the Office in 2005-06 on employee expenses and

purchase of goods and services was $476,000.

In addition, for the purposes of financial statements, notional amounts have

been attributed to operating expenses for services provided by the
Department of Justice and the Department of Corporate and Information
Services. The assistance of both organisations in dealing with administration
of the Office is acknowledged and much appreciated.

A Statement of Financial Performance for 2005-06 is included at Appendix 1

to this Report. The Office is also included in detailed financial statements that
appear in the Annual Report for the Department of Justice.

14
3.1 Awareness
What we do
We promote awareness and understanding of FOI and Privacy Protection in
the Territory. We do this within the public sector and in the community
generally.

We promote FOI and Privacy by activities like:

• publishing guidelines and brochures

• maintaining a public website: [Link]
• giving presentations to public sector, professional and community
groups
• public displays and promotions, public comment and advertising.

We are always looking for new ways to promote FOI and Privacy. We
welcome contact from anyone who would like us to give a presentation or
provide information in some other form.

What we did in 2005-06

Presentations

The Office conducted 45 presentations and displays during the year, the great
majority by the Information Commissioner. Presentations were conducted in
Alice Springs, Katherine, Nhulunbuy, and Darwin.

This was a significant increase on the planned number of presentations due to

substantial demand from agencies seeking introductory training for staff. The
demand for presentations is welcome.

The majority of presentations were aimed at providing an introduction to the

Information Act, and were open to staff of organisations and members of the
community with a general interest in FOI and Privacy. In addition, a number
of presentations were made to senior executive groups of various agencies.

Most of the presentations were scheduled over 2 hours with one hour each
being spent on FOI and Privacy Protection. For a number of sessions, the
Office combined with the NT Archives Service to give an additional session on
Records and Archives Management.

The Office also conducted a number of Advanced Forums to provide more

experienced agency practitioners with an opportunity to share their knowledge
and experiences relating to implementation of the Act.

15
Since March 2003, the Office has conducted 163 presentations and displays
promoting awareness and understanding of FOI and Privacy. The continuing
strong demand for presentations clearly shows a significant and ongoing
interest in these issues.

In September 2005, the Commissioner travelled to Fiji to act as a Keynote

Speaker/ Resource Person at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s
Pacific Workshop on Access to Information. The Workshop was attended by
delegates from a number of Pacific nations. Expenses for the trip were met
by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and NZ Aid. In June 2006,
the Commissioner spoke at the Annual Australian Administrative Law Forum.
Papers given by the Commissioner at these events are available on our
website.

The Commissioner and staff of the Office also participated in regular meetings
of agency Information Officers to discuss and give presentations on specific
aspects of administration of the Act.

External training

As well as giving presentations, the Office facilitated training by two external

service providers in Darwin, with a particular emphasis on advanced training
for Information Officers and decision-makers.

Displays

In July 2005, the Office conducted a joint “Know Your Rights” Show display
with the Community Justice Centre, Consumer and Business Affairs, and the
Anti-Discrimination Commission. The display was conducted at the Alice
Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin shows. Staff from the Office
attended at Alice Springs, Katherine and Darwin. Thanks to the Corporate
Communications Unit of the Department of Justice for their efforts in
facilitating the display. The Office also conducted a display at the Pride
Festival Fair Day.

“Know Your Rights” display on Show circuit

16