State Services Commissioner’s statement on findings of two investigations into possible unauthorised disclosures of information

In March I asked my chief legal advisor to conduct two investigations. The first concerned the possible unauthorised disclosure of information from the cabinet paper on the Stocktake of Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991: Release of discussion paper (the minerals inquiry). The second concerned the possible unauthorised disclosure of information on the Cabinet paper on ‘Lifting the performance and service delivery of State Sector Agencies’ (the machinery of government paper investigation).

The unauthorised disclosure of government information strikes at the heart of the crucial relationship of trust that needs to exist between Ministers and their officials, for the business of government to work as it should. Ministers have a right to make decisions in a calm and deliberative manner and through processes which are not destabilised by premature and unauthorised disclosure. These inquiries reflect the seriousness with which Ministers and I view such matters.

Both investigations have required a more extensive set of interviews than initially planned, and the collation of more information than originally envisaged, as the total number of parties involved became apparent. For this reason it has taken longer to finalise these inquiries than initially expected.

I have now received reports on both investigations. Both reports present a thorough and methodical account of the facts. They reach considered conclusions which I accept.

In respect of the minerals inquiry it was found that there was a deliberate unauthorised disclosure. There was not sufficient evidence to establish who disclosed the information. The evidence does not indicate that disclosures were more likely to have come from the Public Service than other parties who had access to the information disclosed.

In respect of the machinery of government paper investigation it was found that there was a deliberate unauthorised disclosure of information relating to the options contained in the Cabinet paper. No one person was identified as having deliberately disclosed the information. However, at least one aspect of what was being proposed was probably disclosed by a public servant. The report found that the evidence lead to the conclusion that one of the sources for the journalists was either someone in the National Library, or someone being told something by someone in the National Library, who then passed this information on. This is a disappointing finding as it indicates a lapse from the high standard of professionalism held by the majority of public servants.

The machinery of government paper also indicates that more public servants had been given knowledge by their chief executives about some of the options being prepared for Cabinet than authorised by the State Services Commission. The motivation for a broader range of officials being given this information was well intentioned and designed to ensure that departments could respond quickly to a Cabinet decision. However, agency amalgamation can be sensitive and Ministers should be able to discuss these proposals in confidence before arriving at a decision. This investigation suggests a two-stage process for future amalgamation to balance the need for confidentiality while recognising the considerable amount of implementation work required by such proposals.

Both investigations were also asked to consider what actions could be taken to deter future unauthorised disclosure of government information. Specific recommendations as they relate to each investigation are contained in the respective reports which will be publicly available on the State Services Commission website. The Commission will work with relevant agencies to advance and see through any required changes.

Summary of shared recommendations between both reports:

Cabinet Office guidance – it would be helpful to clarify the guidance on the definition and application of security classifications, so they can be easily understood and applied by officials preparing policy documents.

Clear communication of need for confidentiality – clarity is needed from the outset so that those involved in the process are made fully aware of the requirement for confidentiality.

Departmental policy/guidance – all government agencies should have an explicit policy and guidance on the handling of government information, including Cabinet papers. These should be regularly reviewed.

Training of staff – the handling of Cabinet documents or other sensitive government papers should be a distinct induction module for new staff and regular updated training provided to existing staff.

Ministers’ offices – it would be helpful for induction processes to be strengthened, to ensure that: (i) all new staff in Ministers’ offices receive training in these areas; and (ii) refresher sessions are offered to existing staff at reasonable intervals.

Information technology systems – the Cabinet Office has started a project on information technology support for the Cabinet system which will consider document access, control, and monitoring.

ENDS

© Scoop Media