Exemptions relied on

My Office requested that organisations provide details of the number of pages

in respect of which each exemption was relied on. The details were provided
on the following basis:
• a page was counted even if only a small part of it was deleted
• if more than one exemption was relied on, each was counted.

Details of exemptions relied on by each organisation in 2005-06 are recorded

in Appendix 2, Table 6. These figures reflect the initial decisions of
organisations. In some cases, additional information has been disclosed on
internal review or on complaint to the Commissioner by agreement with the
organisation.

I have referred previously to the potential for one or two decisions dealing with
a large number of pages to skew results for the number of times an exemption
has been relied on. To reduce that potential, I have taken figures for the
previous three years into consideration in preparing the following table setting
out the exemptions most frequently relied on by organisations.

Table 2 - Top 5 exemptions relied on (by page) – 1.7.03 to 30.6.06

Exemption No. of
pages

Unreasonable interference with privacy 4,625

Legal professional privilege 2,780
Communicated in confidence 2,570
Deliberative processes 1,961
Information about proceeding before court or tribunal 1,926
(Note: The number of pages listed represents the number of pages from which
information has been deleted. So, many of the pages listed above may have only
had small portions deleted.)

It is not surprising that the privacy exemption tops the list. Protection of
individual privacy is recognised as important for the proper functioning of the
FOI access scheme. However, there is no blanket exemption for such
information. In each case, there must be a consideration of public interest
factors that weigh for and against disclosure. Frequently, all that will be
deleted in these cases will be a name, a home address or home phone
number.

The Legal professional privilege exemption recognises a common law limit on

the requirement to disclose information in court proceedings. The nature of
litigation promotes the creation of large numbers of documents that are likely
to qualify for exemption. This may also partly explain the prominence of the
exemption for information about a proceeding before a court or tribunal.

37
Even combining figures for three years, it is clear that some individual
decisions have had a significant influence on the make-up of the Top 5.
These figures should continue to be viewed with caution, and should not be
regarded as necessarily indicative of long term trends as to the extent to
which organisations will rely on particular exemptions.

Exemption certificates
The Chief Minister has the power to issue an exemption certificate, certifying
that particular government information is exempt under one of the Executive
Council, Cabinet, security and law enforcement, privacy, or cultural
information exemptions. An exemption certificate is conclusive evidence that
it is not in the public interest to disclose the information.

The Chief Minister has advised that no exemption certificates were issued in
2005-06. No certificates have been issued since the commencement of the
Act.

Application and processing fees

Organisations can charge for accepting and dealing with access applications,
in line with a fee structure set out in the Act and Regulations. Fees for
applications restricted to personal information are considerably more limited
than for applications about general information.

Overall, organisations reported charging a total of $22,548 for application and

processing fees in 2005-06. This compared with $10,476 in 2004-05 and
$22,685 in 2003-04.

Fees can be waived or reduced in certain circumstances. The total amount of

fees reported as reduced or waived was $2 ,127. However, this figure does
not represent the total amount of fees waived or reduced because, in cases
where a decision is made to waive a processing fee before an estimate of
costs is made, organisations will not usually calculate the precise fee that
could have been charged.

Details of the fees charged and fees reported as being waived or reduced by
each organisation are recorded in Appendix 2, Table 7.

38
4.3 FOI Correction scheme
Individuals have the right to apply to an organisation to correct personal
information about them that is inaccurate, incomplete or out of date. An
organisation can make the correction sought, make a different correction or
refuse to correct. If the organisation refuses to make the correction sought,
the applicant can require the organisation to take reasonable steps to attach
to the information a statement of the applicant’s opinion about the information.

During 2005-06, 9 applications were made to correct personal information.

Seven of those applications were made to the NTPFES. Of the 6 cases
finalised by decision, correction was made in the form requested in 4 cases
and no correction was made in the other 2 cases.

Details of the applications received by each organisation are recorded in

Appendix 2, Table 8.

4.4 FOI Internal Review

A person who is aggrieved by an initial FOI decision has a right to seek
internal review of that decision by another officer within the organisation. The
organisation can decide to confirm the initial decision, vary it in some respect,
or revoke it and substitute another decision.

Overall, 19 internal review applications were made during the reporting period.
It is of note that while applications to the NTPFES made up approximately half
of the access applications made across the whole of government, only one
Internal Review application was made in respect of an NTPFES decision
during the period.

Of the 16 internal reviews finalised by a decision, 9 confirmed the initial

decision, 6 varied the initial decision and 1 revoked the initial decision and
substituted another. In 6 of the reviews, the applicant achieved a better result
through the review process.

Details of the internal review applications received by each organisation are

recorded in Appendix 2, Table 9.

39
 Appendix 1
Statement of Financial Performance

OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER3

For the year ended 30 June 2006
Total
$'000 $'000
OPERATING REVENUE
Output Revenue 478
Goods and Services Received Free of Charge 50

TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE 528

OPERATING EXPENSES
Employee Expenses 390
Administrative Expenses
Purchase of Goods & Services4 86
Property Management 3
Accommodation 1
Communications 6
Consumables / General Expense 2
Document Production 2
Information Technology Charges 18
Library Services 1
Marketing and Promotion 33
Membership and Subscription 2
Motor Vehicle Expenses 9
Office Requisites and Stationery 2
Official Duty Fares 3
Other Equipment Expenses 1
Training and Study 2
Travel Allowance 1
Other expenses5 50

TOTAL EXPENSES 526

NET SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) 2

3
The Office is also included in detailed financial statements that appear in the Department of Justice
Annual Report.
4
Indicative figures for Purchase of Goods and Services only.
5
Includes DCIS Services Free of Charge (based on a percentage allocation of Department of Justice
figures).

40
Appendix 2
Statistics by public sector organisation

The following tables set out information about FOI access and correction
applications made to public sector organisations, and FOI and Privacy
complaints made to the Information Commissioner during 2005-06:
• Table 3 Overview of FOI Access applications
• Table 4 Access Overview (Access granted in full, in part, refused)
• Table 5 Reasons for refusal
• Table 6 Exemptions relied on (by page)
• Table 7 Fees charged / Fees waived or reduced
• Table 8 FOI Correction applications
• Table 9 FOI Internal Review applications
• Table 10 FOI Complaints to Information Commissioner
• Table 11 Privacy Complaints to Information Commissioner

The information recorded in Tables 3-9 was provided to the Office by each
public sector organisation through a Statistical Return completed at the end of
the reporting year. The Office appreciates the co-operation of FOI
administrators within organisations in completing the Returns and responding
to requests for clarification.

Comparison with figures for some departments from earlier Annual Reports is
either not possible or of limited value due to restructuring that took place in
mid-2005.

Abbreviations for public sector organisations referred to in the tables are:

DCM Dept of the Chief Minister
DCIS Dept of Corporate and Information Services
DEET Dept of Employment, Education and Training
DHCS Dept of Health and Community Services
DoJ Dept of Justice
DLGHS Dept of Local Government, Housing And Sport
DNRETA Dept of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts
DPI Dept of Planning and Infrastructure
DPIFM Dept of Primary Industries, Fisheries and Mines
Treasury NT Treasury
NTPFES NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services
OCPE Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment
CDU Charles Darwin University
TIO Territory Insurance Office
HPLA Health Professions Licensing Authority
Jabiru TDA Jabiru Town Development Authority

The Department of Business, Economic and Regional Development did not

report receiving any applications during the year.

41
 Table 3 - Overview of FOI Access applications (Figures are for number of applications)
Organisation Lodged6 Finalised Not Transfer Withdrawn8 Pending at
accepted7 end year

Chief Minister (Dept) 3 2 1

Corporate and Information Services (Dept) 8(3) 9 1 1
Employment, Education and Training (Dept) 12 8 1 3
Health and Community Services (Dept) 20(8) 22 5 1
Justice (Dept) 6 4 1 1
Local Government, Housing And Sport (Dept) 26 17 5 2 1 1
Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts (Dept) 3 1 1 1
Planning and Infrastructure (Dept) 6(6) 9 1 1 1
Primary Industries, Fisheries and Mines (Dept) 5 2 1 2
42

Treasury 37 36 1

Police, Fire and Emergency Services 143(7) 116 6 11 17

Office of Commissioner for Public Employment 3(1) 4
Territory Insurance Office 3 3
Health Professions Licensing Authority 2 1 1
Ombudsman 2 2

6
Numbers in brackets are for applications carried over from previous reporting period.
7
Reasons for non-acceptance may include non-payment of the $30 application fee, failure to be satisfied as to the identity of the applicant, information outside the
scope of the Act, eg., non-personal information held by a GBD or GOC, or non-personal information created before 1 July 1993.
8
A number of applications were withdrawn after access to information was provided under administrative schemes.
 Table 3 - continued
Organisation Lodged9 Finalised Not Transfer Withdrawn Pending at
accepted10 11
end year

PowerWater 2 2
Charles Darwin University 1(1) 1 1
Jabiru Town Development Authority 1 1
Tourism NT 1 1

Darwin City Council 5 3 2

Alice Springs Town Council 1 1
43

Coomalie Community Council 1 1

Jabiru Town Council 1 1

TOTAL 292(26) 244 19 5 24 26

9
Numbers in brackets are for applications carried over from previous reporting period.
10
Reasons for non-acceptance may include non-payment of the $30 application fee, failure to be satisfied as to the identity of the applicant, information outside the
scope of the Act, eg., non-personal information held by a GBD or GOC, or non-personal information created before 1 July 1993.
11
A number of applications were withdrawn after access to information was provided under administrative schemes.
 Table 4 - Access Overview – (Access granted in full, in part or refused)
Organisation12 Applications Applications Applications Pages Pages Pages
granted in full granted in part refused in full granted in full granted in part refused in full
DCM 1 1 36
DCIS 1 8 2,174 24 303
DEET 3 5 3,358 509 648
DHCS 9 6 7 4,758 222 1,307
DoJ 3 113 424 125 272
DLGHS 5 11 1 1,141 347 323
DNRETA 1 359 14 30
DPI 9 423 53 245
DPIFM 2 91
Treasury 34 2 2,449 2 200
NTPFES 34 68 14 2,045 599 1,599
OCPE 2 2 359 3 232
44

TIO 3 263 397

HPLA 1 40
Ombudsman 2 526 118 118
CDU 1 39
Tourism NT 1 15 2
Darwin CC 1 2 51 24 9
Alice Springs TC 1 250
Coomalie CC 1 1
Jabiru TC 1 1
TOTAL 95 123 26 18,763 2,042 5,723

12
See page 41 or Table 3 for full titles of organisations.
13
Refused in full because documents did not exist.
 Table 5 - Reasons for refusal
(Figures are for number of applications. In any one application, access to information may be refused for one or more reasons).
Organisation Exempt Already Does Can’t Can’t be Deferred Unreasonable Neither Not
publicly not be identified (s.23) interference with confirm covered by
available exist found operations nor Act15
14
deny
DCM 1
DCIS 8
DEET 5 1 1
DHCS 10 2 1
DoJ 3 1
DLGHS 9 1 1 1
DNRETA 1
DPI 8 1
Treasury 2
45

NTPFES 76 1 5
OCPE 2
TIO 3
Ombudsman 2
CDU 1
Tourism NT 1
Darwin CC 2
Jabiru TC 1
TOTAL 134 2 7 1 5 2

14
If it is not in the public interest for an applicant to know whether information exists, the organisation is not required to confirm or deny the existence of information.
15
For example, information may not fall within the Act if it is non-personal information that is held by a GOC or GBD, or if it was created or received before July 1993.
 Table 6 - Exemptions relied on (by page)
This table lists the number of times that access was refused to pages in full or granted in part on the basis of particular exemptions. A page
is counted even if only a small amount of information was deleted from it. Each exemption is counted even if the same information was
found to be exempt under several provisions (see Table 4 for total number of pages to which access was granted in part or refused in full).

If an exemption has not been relied on, it is not included in the Table. Organisations that have relied on only one or two exemptions are
listed at the bottom of the Table.

Exemption and DCIS DEET DHCS DoJ DLGHS NRETA DPI Treasury NTPFES OCPE Omb TOTAL
section number

Executive Council,
Cabinet, Territory
economy - s.45(1)
(a)(i) 37 47 50 134
46

(a)(ii) 2 2
(a)(iii) 37 37
(a)(iv) 2 11 13
(a)(v) 17 17

Security and law

enforcement – s.46
(2)(a) 1,095 1,095
(2)(b) 9 9
(2)(c) 9 1 59 69

Corresponding 0
FOI law – s.47
 Exemption and DCIS DEET DHCS DoJ DLGHS NRETA DPI Treasury NTPFES OCPE Omb TOTAL
section number

Secrecy provisions – 12 33 37 82
s.48

Preservation of
system of
justice – s.49
(b) 20 20
(c) 13 100 168 281
(d) 174 526 120 94 12 23 118 52 28 49 1,196
(e) 6 59 65

Inter-governmental 0
47

relations – s.51

Deliberative 107 6 35 135 25 10 128 200 92 89 1,218

processes – s.52

Effective operation
organisations – s.53
(b) 3 42
(c) 14 14

Health, safety, 850 41 891

environment
– s.54(a)
 Exemption and DCIS DEET DHCS DoJ DLGHS NRETA DPI Treasury NTPFES OCPE Omb TOTAL
section number

Confidentiality
obligations – s.55
(1) 21 131 14 15 181
(3) 15 131 57 146 43 104 2 498

Privacy – s.56(1)(a 23 625 334 27 130 11 50 796 121 2,151

Commercial and 6 41 3 58
business – s.57(1)(b)

Financial and 0
48

property interests –
s.58

The following organisations relied on only one or two exemptions (pages are included in the “Total” figures in the Table):

• TIO s.52, 391 pages, s.57(1)(b), 6 pages

• CDU s.53(b), 39 pages
• Tourism NT s.57(1)(b), 2 pages
• Darwin CC s.56(1)(a), 33 pages
• Jabiru TC s.56(1)(a), 1 page.
.
 Table 7 - Fees charged / Fees waived or reduced
Fees charged Fees waived or reduced
Organisation
Application Processing Total of application fees Total of processing fees
$ $ waived or reduced waived or reduced16
$ $
DCM 90
DCIS 30
DEET 30 56
DHCS 48 28 30 1,049
DoJ 90 7,545 30
DLGHS 180 4,601
DNRETA 60
DPI 120 1,581 30 395
49

DPIFM 60
Treasury 60 3,158
NTPFES 900 3,425 120 350
OCPE 60
Ombudsman 106
CDU 30
Jabiru TDA 30
Tourism NT 30 3
Darwin CC 90 140 60
Alice Springs TC 30
Coomalie CC 30

TOTAL 1,908 20,640 330 1,797

16
This figure does not represent the total amount of fees waived or reduced because, in cases where a decision is made to waive a processing fee before an
estimate of costs is made, organisations will not usually calculate the precise fee that could have been charged.
 Table 8 - FOI Correction applications
This Table records details of applications for correction of personal information. Applications are made on the basis that the information
sought to be corrected is inaccurate, incomplete or out of date. An organisation can decide to make the correction specified, make a
correction in another form or refuse to make a correction. If an applicant remains unsatisfied, he or she can require the organisation to
take all reasonable steps to associate with the information a statement of the applicant’s opinion.

Organisation Lodged Withdrawn Open at Finalised Correction Correction No Statement

end year made as made in correction by applicant
50

specified other form made associated

DPI 1 1 1
NTPFES 7 1 1 5 3 2
OCPE 1 1

TOTAL 9 2 1 6 4 2
 Table 9 - FOI Internal Review applications
This Table records details of applications to each organisation for internal review of an initial FOI decision.

Organisation Lodged Withdrawn Open at Finalised Initial Initial Initial Applicant

end year decision decision decision did better
confirmed varied revoked

DCIS 2 2 2 1
DHCS 4 1 3 3
DHLGS 2 1 1 1
51

DPI 1 1 1 1
DPIFM 3 3 3
Treasury 2 2 1 1 1
NTPFES 1 1 1 1
TIO 1 1 1 1
HPLA 1 1
CDU 1 1 1 1
Jabiru TC 1 1 1

TOTAL 19 2 1 16 9 6 1 6
 Table 10 – FOI Complaints to Information Commissioner
All figures are for number of complaints.

Respondent Lodged17 Not Resolved Open at

Organisation accepted informally end year
DEET 6(2) 1 7
DHCS 2 2
DOJ 2 2
DLGHS 1 1
DPIFM 3 1 2
NTPFES 5(1) 1 5
52

CDU 1 1
OCPE (2) 2
HPLA (1) 1
TIO 2 1 1
Jabiru TC 1 1

TOTAL 23(6) 4 4 21

17
Figures in brackets for complaints carried over from previous year.
 Table 11 – Privacy Complaints to Information Commissioner
All figures are for number of complaints.

Respondent Lodged18 Not Resolved Open at

Organisation accepted informally end year
DEET (1) 1
NTPFES (1) 1
CDU 1 1
HPLA 1 1
53

OCPE 1 1
TIO 2 1 1

TOTAL 5(2) 2 2 3

18
Includes direct complaints and complaints referred from another body. Figures in brackets for complaints carried over from previous year.
Telephone Website

1800 005 610  [Link]

08 8999 1500  [Link]

Fax
 [Link]

¬ 08 8981 3812
Email

Mail
 infocomm@[Link]

 GPO Box 3750 Office

Darwin NT 0801 ) Level 7
9-11 Cavenagh St
Darwin NT
 National Innovation Foundation
Annual Report 2005-2006

Contents

1. The Year at a Glance

2. Review of Activities: NIF
3. Review of Activities: GIANs
4. Acknowledgements
5. Join us
6. Auditor’s Report and Balance Sheet

1. The Year at a Glance

The year 2005-06 was marked by a significant augmentation of the database of innovations
and traditional knowledge practices. The Fifth National Scouting Campaign which started
on January 1, 2005, seemed to indicate the number of innovative and traditional knowledge
practices in NIF’s database would inch closer to the 100,000 mark by the time it ended in
December 2006. By the end of the fourth round (December 31, 2004), thanks to the support of
the Honey Bee network collaborators, NIF had reached almost all corners of the country,
and had in its database 63,368 innovations and traditional knowledge practices. The table
below presents the progress over the years.

Table 1: Innovations and Traditional Knowledge Practices in NIF database (validated and
finalized entries)

National Campaign Number of Practices Cumulative Total

Scouted
First: March 1, 2000 – January 31, 2001 1643 1643
Second: February 1, 2001 - December 31, 2001 19461 21104
Third: January 1, 2002 - December 31, 2002 25809 46913
Fourth: January 1, 2003 - December 31, 2004 16455 63368

But then, mere scouting is not enough. Intensive value addition and business development
have to follow. Enquiries from over 200 people from 32 foreign countries indicate that there
is a demand for Indian grassroots technologies across the globe. Within India, the
dissemination process was strengthened as a result of sustained television coverage through
programmes like ‘India Innovates’ on NDTV. BBC and Discovery Channel have joined in as
well. When Discovery wanted to introduce a series ‘Beyond Tomorrow’, based on the
achievements of modern technologies, NIF’s grassroots work provided it an ideal base.

But then, the disbursement of only about Rupees ten lakh of MVIF funds for business
development and product development and about Rupees sixteen lakh for scouting and
documentation showed that the emphasis had not yet shifted adequately towards markets.
We hope that in the years to come, we will be able to convert more and more innovations
and traditional knowledge into market-friendly products and services.

Social diffusion is no less important than commercial diffusion. Thus a new business plan
competition, Pratyancha, was introduced. Students from various academic institutions were

1
asked to submit social diffusion plans for selected technologies of NIF. Since this was the
first attempt, several technologies which could have been diffused through commercial
channels were included as well. The aim was to involve young people in this innovation
movement.

The Fifth National Campaign for scouting grassroots innovations and outstanding
traditional knowledge, which started on January 1, 2005, is going on. It will take time for the
entries to be collated, but initial indications are that the number of districts from where
responses are being received is higher. The first few hundred entries have been received
from over 180 districts. The wide coverage of NIF’s message implies a greater moral and
professional burden on delivering results. In the fourth round, the scouting activities for
herbal knowledge had slowed down. The main reason was that NIF could not provide any
incentive, either material or non-material, to the thousands of innovators and traditional
knowledge holders identified so far. In fact, NIF could not honour any herbal healer because
of constraints in validating their knowledge.

During the course of the year, the GIAN cells and the regional collaborators communicated
details about the campaign through students and by systematically reaching out to people
with the help of the District Administration, Panchayats, public bodies and established NGO
networks. Media attention to grassroots
heroes in recent times has contributed
immensely to our campaign and product
dissemination efforts. The spirit of innovation
in the strategies for scouting is manifested in
the ways in which NIF forges new
partnerships and reaches out to places where
peoples’ genius rests unsung.

‘Shodhyatras’ have been organized with

support from SRISTI, Honeybee Network and
IIM-A for a few years now. But every yatra
has a unique focus and unveils new ways in
which scouting happens. The fifteenth and sixteenth shodyatras were held in Himachal and
Kerala, respectively. We reached remote corners of these two states and discovered
innovations in impromptu street corner meetings. Volunteers of NIF, SRISTI, Honey Bee
network and its other collaborators like SEVA, PEDS, walked from village to village and
celebrated creativity and innovation at grassroots. The objectives of the Shodhyatra
remained the same - documenting traditional local knowledge and felicitating knowledge
holders, especially women centenarians. Twenty five women centenarians were thus
honoured. They were rich in their knowledge of ecosystems and various aspects of coastal
fishing. As before, children were involved through biodiversity contests.

This year also saw departure of an old colleague who had helped in laying down the
foundations of NIF. Much of the credit for expanding S and D activities should go to Ms
Riya Sinha, who shouldered various responsibilities at NIF, including those of National
Coordinator (Scouting and Documentation) and Chief Innovation Officer. She left NIF for
personal reasons in October, 2005, but will remain in touch with NIF. On the one hand we
have had problems of high attrition, and on the other, there are examples like Riya’s where
colleagues not only stayed on for a long time but also helped significantly in the
organization’s growth. Her compassionate leadership during all the three Award Functions