#MH370: OAIC rule in favour of Higgins and the Oz right to know. - 
From that man, via the Oz:
Watchdog intervenes in MH370 gag interview
EXCLUSIVE
EAN HIGGINS
REPORTER
@EanHiggins
9:11PM NOVEMBER 11, 2019
The Department of Defence has been forced to reveal the name of an official who suppressed details about why a Defence scientist was gagged, after intervention by the information watchdog.
Defence official Justine Nordin had remained anonymous a year ago in responding to a freedom-of-information request on why the department had not allowed Defence Science and Technology Group expert Neil Gordon to be interviewed by The Australian.
But the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner determined the law clearly states that all formal responses to an FOI request must identify by name the decision-maker, and Defence has now identified Ms Nordin and said it has reviewed its procedures to make sure it complies in future.
The Australian had sought to speak with Dr Gordon in relation to his work on satellite data connected with the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 in 2014. The request was refused.
The head of the Defence media unit, Amy Hawkins, at the time would not say why the interview request was turned down, but said the decision had been taken at a high level. Rather than release her name as required under the FOI Act, Ms Nordin had “digitally signed” the original decision in which she released some old correspondence between The Australian and Defence, but redacted other material in relation to the decision to not grant the interview with Dr Gordon.
“While I accept there is a public interest in the internal procedures of Defence in the management of media requests and that Defence undertakes its functions in a transparent and proper manner, on balance, it would be contrary to the public interest to release” the material sought, Ms Nordin said in her decision.
When The Australian sought guidance from the OAIC on Defence’s failure to identify the officer who made the decision, a spokeswoman for the commissioner said “under section 26(1) of the FOI Act, decision-makers must give a statement of reasons that includes the name and designation of the person making the decision”.
Despite The Australian passing on this information to Ms Hawkins a year ago, Defence did not provide the name of the decision-maker until the newspaper made an official complaint to the OAIC, and that body intervened.
Contacted by The Australian on Monday, Ms Nordin would not say why she did not, as required under the act, reveal her name when she first made her decision, but said she had informed the OAIC. Defence’s acting director of FOI, Kris Quaedvlieg, said the department accepted the law required that Ms Nordin provide her name, and said “I am sure there has been a discussion” with her.
Ms Quaedvlieg said the department had reviewed other FOI decisions and introduced protocols to ensure it complied with the FOI Act in future.
The tendency to refuse to release information on MH370 has also been the usual approach of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, which failed in its $200m underwater search for the downed aircraft.
Hmm..I hope the Hooded Canary has been practicing his singing....
MTF...P2
From that man, via the Oz:
Watchdog intervenes in MH370 gag interview
EXCLUSIVE
EAN HIGGINS
REPORTER
@EanHiggins
9:11PM NOVEMBER 11, 2019
The Department of Defence has been forced to reveal the name of an official who suppressed details about why a Defence scientist was gagged, after intervention by the information watchdog.
Defence official Justine Nordin had remained anonymous a year ago in responding to a freedom-of-information request on why the department had not allowed Defence Science and Technology Group expert Neil Gordon to be interviewed by The Australian.
But the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner determined the law clearly states that all formal responses to an FOI request must identify by name the decision-maker, and Defence has now identified Ms Nordin and said it has reviewed its procedures to make sure it complies in future.
The Australian had sought to speak with Dr Gordon in relation to his work on satellite data connected with the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 in 2014. The request was refused.
The head of the Defence media unit, Amy Hawkins, at the time would not say why the interview request was turned down, but said the decision had been taken at a high level. Rather than release her name as required under the FOI Act, Ms Nordin had “digitally signed” the original decision in which she released some old correspondence between The Australian and Defence, but redacted other material in relation to the decision to not grant the interview with Dr Gordon.
“While I accept there is a public interest in the internal procedures of Defence in the management of media requests and that Defence undertakes its functions in a transparent and proper manner, on balance, it would be contrary to the public interest to release” the material sought, Ms Nordin said in her decision.
When The Australian sought guidance from the OAIC on Defence’s failure to identify the officer who made the decision, a spokeswoman for the commissioner said “under section 26(1) of the FOI Act, decision-makers must give a statement of reasons that includes the name and designation of the person making the decision”.
Despite The Australian passing on this information to Ms Hawkins a year ago, Defence did not provide the name of the decision-maker until the newspaper made an official complaint to the OAIC, and that body intervened.
Contacted by The Australian on Monday, Ms Nordin would not say why she did not, as required under the act, reveal her name when she first made her decision, but said she had informed the OAIC. Defence’s acting director of FOI, Kris Quaedvlieg, said the department accepted the law required that Ms Nordin provide her name, and said “I am sure there has been a discussion” with her.
Ms Quaedvlieg said the department had reviewed other FOI decisions and introduced protocols to ensure it complied with the FOI Act in future.
The tendency to refuse to release information on MH370 has also been the usual approach of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, which failed in its $200m underwater search for the downed aircraft.
Quote:Ger
6 HOURS AGO
We haven’t found it yet.
despite all the high tech equipment used.
despite all the scientific brains participating in the satellites data analysis.
We are told the “calculated splash down zone” has been thoroughly searched
so, clearly its not where we are looking, its somewhere else.
But what if everyone searching was given the same erroneous data to start with?
why has no investigator tracked down the many fishing trawlers in the splash down area of the 7th arc?
shipping trackers show multiple vessels in the area of the 7th arc at the right time for someone from potentially dozens of sailors to have possibly looked up to witness a 777 descending or spiralling out of the sky.
The impact would surely have created a very visible column of white water or loud explosion at the least.
what of the marine tracker screenshot that did the rounds on the net at the time showing several trawlers steaming at speed towards a location well north on the 7th arc.
why is there a dismissive attitude by investigators to public reports of possible sightings? The oil rig worker in the south china sea, the passenger on another flight looking out her window, the yacht at sea near the Andaman islands?
what of the loud explosion detected by the undersea seismology recorders in perth, the event was close to the calculated flameout time of the aircraft but triangulated to a location outside the search area and subsequently dismissed.
I suspect there is a growing number of people going “Hmmmm somethings not right” wheres all the satellite imagery and military early warning/tracking radar reports?
And now we hear of defence officials on the 10th floor frustrating freedom of information requests from the press.
what are they hiding?
The conspiracy deepens.
Call in the FBI i reckon.
Mike
7 HOURS AGO
Well done Ean, keep knocking on the door.
Marian
10 HOURS AGO
These things should not be secret. Public servants should not be building palisades around their work.
Tony
Gimiston
17 HOURS AGO
Just how much does Defence know about the disappearance of MH370? London to a brick they know where it is and privy to a lot more details of it's disappearance.
gregory
3 HOURS AGO
Decided what happened then massaged the evidence to fit. No one could be completely sure of but its most likely MH 370 was flown onto the water. To many real authorities have concluded this rather than the ATSB s hypothesis of armchair investigators. They were badly shown up by the coroners court after the Whyalla air disaster yet never relented with their disproved analysis
Alan
17 HOURS AGO
Once again we see self opinionated civil servants extending their beliefs that they are above the law.Even now this person(she) still thinks that is still the case by not stating her reasons why she acted in the manner she did.
It's apparent she acted in a manner that contravened the act and what penalty did she incur.
Question is,if we the plebs contravened any act would we escape any retribution?.No doubt the answer is obvious.
Hmm..I hope the Hooded Canary has been practicing his singing....
MTF...P2