This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Hiding the names of APS employees terminated for gross misconduct - why the difference in standards?'.

Document 1
FOIREQ18/00156   001
Megan McKenna
From:
Stephanie Otorepec
Sent:
Wednesday, 24 May 2017 3:32 PM
To:
Melanie Drayton
Cc:
Sarah Ghali
Subject:
FW: FOR CLEARANCE BY COB TODAY: response to APSC re reporting of terminations 
for misconduct [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi Mel, 
s 22
 
Here is the text: 
*** *** 
Dear Kerren 
Thank you for your email seeking comments on a potential change to the APSC’s process for recording terminations 
for misconduct. Thank you also for allowing a short extension for the OAIC’s response. 
I recognise the importance of maintaining the integrity of the APS and dealing with serious misconduct 
appropriately, including the importance of maintaining appropriate records of relevant incidents. In this regard I 
understand that the APSC’s current Directions require the publication (in the APS Gazette) of the names of ongoing 
APS employees who have had their employment terminated for a breach of the APS Code of Conduct.  
I note the context of your review, and would broadly support the change you propose ‐ which would be to instead 
record such information in a centralised database which would be accessible only to relevant APS staff on an as‐
needed basis. Provided appropriate safeguards are in place, this would seem to be less privacy‐invasive than the 
current arrangements.  
In this regard, as part of the APSC’s development of any new process I would encourage you to ensure that an 
appropriate balance is struck between any impacts on individual privacy, and efforts to realise the record‐keeping 
and integrity objectives you have outlined below. The challenge lies in ensuring that adequate privacy safeguards 
are built‐in to any new information gathering and sharing processes. To facilitate this, I would strongly recommend 
that the APSC undertake a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) in relation to any new proposals, to ensure that any 
relevant privacy risks or impacts are identified and managed appropriately.  
More information on how to conduct a PIA can be found on my Office’s website and in the Guide to Conducting 
Privacy Impact Assessments
. Feel free to call me on (02) 9284 9812 if you would like to discuss further.  
Kind regards 
Melanie 
From: Melanie Drayton  
Sent: Wednesday, 24 May 2017 3:27 PM 
To: Stephanie Otorepec  
Cc: Sarah Ghali  
1

FOIREQ18/00156   002
Subject: Re: FOR CLEARANCE BY COB TODAY: response to APSC re reporting of terminations for misconduct 
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] 
 
Thanks Steph, can you please alter so it's coming from me and going to Kerren. Invite her to call me directly if she'd 
like to discuss. I've also changed the last sentence slightly.  
s 22
  
Thanks 

 
Sent from my iPhone 
 
s 22
 
s 22
  
 
 
 
s 22
 
 
 
s 22
 
 
 
On 24 May 2017, at 2:53 PM, Stephanie Otorepec <xxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx> wrote: 
Hi Mel and Sarah 
 
Sorry just got to this ‐ please see here a draft response for TP about the APSC 
question ‐ due today. What do you think? 
 
s 22
 
  
 
Thanks 
Steph 
 
*** 
 
Dear [John/Kerren] 
 
Thank you for your email seeking comments on a potential change to the APSC’s 
process for recording terminations for misconduct. Thank you also for allowing a 
short extension for the OAIC’s response. 
 
I recognise the importance of maintaining the integrity of the APS and dealing with 
serious misconduct appropriately, including the importance of maintaining 
appropriate records of relevant incidents. In this regard I understand that the 
APSC’s current Directions require the publication (in the APS Gazette) of the names 
of ongoing APS employees who have had their employment terminated for a breach 
of the APS Code of Conduct.  
 
2

FOIREQ18/00156   003
 
I note the context of your review, and would broadly support the change you 
propose ‐ which would be to instead record such information in a centralised 
database which would be accessible only to relevant APS staff on an as‐needed 
basis. Provided appropriate safeguards are in place, this would seem to be less 
privacy‐invasive than the current arrangements.  
 
In this regard, as part of the APSC’s development of any new process I would 
encourage you to ensure that an appropriate balance is struck between any impacts 
on individual privacy, and efforts to realise the record‐keeping and integrity 
objectives you have outlined below. The challenge lies in ensuring that adequate 
privacy safeguards are built‐in to any new information gathering and sharing 
processes. To facilitate this, I would strongly recommend that the APSC undertake a 
Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) in relation to any new proposals, to ensure that 
any relevant privacy risks or impacts are identified and managed appropriately.  
 
More information on how to conduct a PIA can be found on my Office’s website and 
in the Guide to Conducting Privacy Impact Assessments.  
 
Kind regards 
 
[Timothy]  
 
 
From: Melanie Drayton  
Sent: Monday, 22 May 2017 10:47 AM 
To: Sarah Ghali <xxxxx.xxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx>; Stephanie Otorepec 
<xxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx> 
Subject: FW: Reporting of terminations for misconduct [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] 
Importance: High 
 
Hi guys 
 
s 22
 
 
Can you please have a look and draft a very brief response for TP to send back. 
 
It’s fairly straight forward and we’d support the move to a database accessible by 
HR, given it has the appropriate protections etc. 
 
s 22
 
 
Thanks 
Mel 
 
s 22
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
3

FOIREQ18/00156   004
s 22
 
s 22
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
4



Document 2
FOIREQ18/00156   006
Megan McKenna
From:
Melanie Drayton
Sent:
Wednesday, 24 May 2017 4:29 PM
To:
xxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
Subject:
APSC’s process for recording terminations for misconduct [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Dear Kerren 
 
Thank you for your email seeking comments on a potential change to the APSC’s process for recording 
terminations for misconduct. Thank you also for allowing a short extension for the OAIC’s response. 
 
We recognise the importance of maintaining the integrity of the APS and dealing with serious misconduct 
appropriately, including the importance of maintaining appropriate records of relevant incidents. In this 
regard I understand that the APSC’s current Directions require the publication (in the APS Gazette) of the 
names of ongoing APS employees who have had their employment terminated for a breach of the APS 
Code of Conduct.  
 
I note the context of your review, and we would broadly support the change you propose ‐ which would be 
to instead record such information in a centralised database which would be accessible only to relevant 
APS staff on an as‐needed basis. Provided appropriate safeguards are in place, this would seem to be less 
privacy‐invasive than the current arrangements.  
 
In this regard, as part of the APSC’s development of any new process I would encourage you to ensure that 
an appropriate balance is struck between any impacts on individual privacy, and efforts to realise the 
record‐keeping and integrity objectives you have outlined below. The challenge lies in ensuring that 
adequate privacy safeguards are built‐in to any new information gathering and sharing processes. To 
facilitate this, I would strongly recommend that the APSC undertake a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) in 
relation to any new proposals, to ensure that any relevant privacy risks or impacts are identified and 
managed appropriately.  
 
More information on how to conduct a PIA can be found on my Office’s website and in the Guide to 
Conducting Privacy Impact Assessments
. Feel free to call me on (02) 9284 9812 if you would like to discuss 
further.  
 
Kind regards 
 
Melanie 
 
 
Melanie Drayton  
Assistant Commissioner | Regulation and Strategy 
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner  
Level 3, 175 Pitt Street, SYDNEY NSW 2000 |www.oaic.gov.au 
Phone: +61 2 9284 9812| 1300 363 992 
Email: xxxxxxx.xxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx  
 
 
1


FOIREQ18/00156   007
 
 
 
2






Document 4
FOIREQ18/00156   010


FOIREQ18/00156   011

Document 5
FOIREQ18/00156   012
From:
John McMillan
To:
FISHER,Karin
Cc:
James Popple; Timothy Pilgrim; Angelene Falk; HOOPER,Louise; Judy Woutersz
Subject:
RE: APS employee information - public consultation paper and other matters [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date:
Wednesday, 19 March 2014 2:00:12 PM
Attachments:
image001.jpg
Dear Karin
Notification of employment decisions in the Gazette – draft discussion paper
Thanks for your email and for giving the OAIC an opportunity to comment on these drafts. I have
some comments to offer on the draft issues paper which I’ve outlined below. Regarding the
second matter (the guidelines), given the longer lead-time, I will respond to you about that in a
separate email, rather than hold up this one.
The discussion paper reads very well. It explains the key issues clearly and gives a good overview
of past and present practice and the legal basis for present practice. The discussion questions at
the end are pertinent and should elicit useful feedback.
The OAIC has three comments to make.
Preferred view
The paper does what a discussion paper is meant to do, by placing all issues on the table and
inviting comment. But would it make better sense on this occasion to flag the Public Service
Commissioner’s preferred view (this is done obliquely at p 6, viz, ‘On this basis, it is reasonable to
consider removing the requirement to gazette termination decisions. The interests of
transparency may be served in a different way…’)?
From the discussion in the paper it would appear that a change to the Public Service
Commissioner Directions is desirable, and almost certainly this lies behind the Parliamentary
Joint Committee’s referral of the issue. The OAIC believes that the case for protecting the privacy
of terminated employees is a strong one and countervailing arguments for transparency and
oversight of APS recruitment activities are outweighed by the significance of the privacy impact
and the existence of alternatives (such as publication of the information in de-identified form or
provision of the information to the APSC without the further step of gazetting). In our view,
many of the objectives of publication can be achieved without naming individuals.
Presenting the Commissioner’s preferred view would provide a proposal for stakeholders to
argue for or against. It might also help stakeholders in focussing their response, for example, to
propose that clause 2.29(1)(i) be removed entirely or be altered only in part (for example,
removal of just the requirement to publish the grounds for termination). It is for you to consider,
but our view is that a preferred approach could sit alongside the consultation questions at the
end of the paper.
Technological change and its impact on publication of employment decisions
Something that you might like to consider including in the paper is the affect the internet (and
publication of Gazettes online) has on privacy. The discussion paper provides a very useful
history of the gazettal of employment decisions. You may wish to draw out what has changed
between 1902 (and the first Public Service Act) and 2014 which might justify a change in
approach. A key change with implications for privacy is that gazettes are now published online
and are therefore available for much longer and in a more searchable form.
In the past, publication in hard copy may have had a less significant privacy impact given that any