Campaign to Save the Powerhouse
Act now to prevent certain disaster!

Responsibility for facts stated is taken by Tom Lockley, PO Box 301, Pyrmont
0403 615 134 tomlockley@gmail.com

apologies for the mix-up re Bulletin 51!

Bulletin 52: Watch this space (24 June 2020)

 

KEY POINT: As you all know, next Wednesday, July 1, the traditional areas of the Powerhouse Museum in Ultimo are to be closed preparatory to demolition. Contrary to rumour, it can still be stopped – they cannot bring in the bulldozers till the project is ‘determined’ and that cannot legally happen till the Business Case is finalised If this disastrous project is not stopped, however then the best possible outcome is the creation of an inferior museum in Parramatta, not reflecting Parramatta’s own remarkable history, erected on a site not approved by the Parramatta Council, with no local consultation at all. Over a billion dollars will be wasted and the magnificent heritage of the Powerhouse Museum at Ultimo will be destroyed.

Given the track record of this Government, however, it is far more likely that both sites will remain a wasteland for years – an example is the Parramatta Swimming pool, still not replaced after over four years.

If the museum is not ‘moved’ the money saved will indeed build Parramatta the locally-based cultural facilities it deserves.

Because of Covid restrictions, there are many restrictions on what we can do – for example a  normal ‘demonstration’ cannot take place, but there is a lot of action in hand and I hope to get out Bulletin 53 in a few days with more information and action suggestions, but here is a start:

ACTION SUGGESTIONS:

Please keep up the usual pressure – talk to your local member, email the Premier / Arts minister, write letters to the paper, generally maintain the rage: but a few specifics:

The MAAS Facebook site is accepting comments and they are being overwhelmed by the opponents of the move, not surprising as there are not many supporters. If you are a Facebook person, go to  https://www.facebook.com/21145917717/posts/10158763449437718/?d=n  and have your say. It will be interesting to see how they handle these comments – remove them or ignore them. It is embarrassing for the Facebook hosts, pity about that.

THIS FROM SUZETTE MEADE, NORTH PARRAMATTA RESIDENTS ACTION GROUP: We have sent MailChimp campaign to our 10,000 save Willow Grove database last night and started our letterbox flyer tonight - so far we have 4000 committed to be delivered.

Our campaign is “the only way to save Willow Grove is to object to the powerhouse”.

See link to MailChimp. https://mailchi.mp/82d4a0908dc5/how-to-save-willowgrove-object-to-powerhouse-now-5078541

We also set up a save Willow Grove Facebook page two weeks ago that’s already got 1000 followers and over 100,000 views. Meanwhile you may like this article https://bit.ly/2YoxMEE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RE PARRAMATTA

The EIS for the Powerhouse in Parramatta is currently on public exhibition until 7 July 2020.

You can view the full EIS and a make a formal submission to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment here

( http://www.infrastructure.nsw.gov.au/projects-nsw/powerhouse-parramatta/ )

See a sample list of problems with the design here

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The rest of this bulletin adds some details:

THE BIG FEAR is that, under the guise of preparing the move, major exhibits may be moved from the museum. We have asked repeatedly for an undertaking that this would not happen, with no success.

MOCK CONSULTATION CONTINUES. On April 4 I had a conversation with Ms Kylie Cochran, of Aureocon, a PR firm, about the consultation process that she was conducting – assisted by Ms Havilah, CEO of the museum, charged with the task of making the ‘move’ happen, and Mr Tom Kennedy, of Infrastructure NSW, whose most recent task was involvement in the pre-election destruction of the Sydney Football Stadium. I mentioned that the previous consultation had completely ignored the basic objections to the process, and simply asked what people wanted in the new museum at Parramatta and what they wanted in the remains of Ultimo after they had erected four huge towers on most of the museum site.

Ms Cochrane, and later, Ms Havilah, assured me that this was different – consultation would be genuine.

It wasn’t. The same grubby tactics were followed.

For example, the policy of the National Trust has been crystal clear: they oppose the destruction of the Powerhouse and of the heritage buildings at Parramatta. Yet the glossy, quickly prepared report of the consultation mentions none of this but mentions a few peripheral comments made about the Parramatta building.

There was a report that the Powerhouse Museum Alliance had been consulted on April 2. The chief convenor has emailed: No member of the PMA took part in a webinar on April 2 or any other day. We deliberately took no part in these consultations knowing from experience that there is never an accurate record of the discussions, especially if you disagree or dispute and that being listed in such Consultation reports means that you are on record as having had your say.

DOCUMENT RELEASE. The Government has released well over 5000 documents in response to Robert Borsak’s request for more information. Fuller details below: but here is a summary.

The documents are just printouts of various items from the various archives. They are not organised or issued as separate items, just as they come from the photocopier. They are all printed on a4 and often are illegible. Due to Coronavirus restrictions, they can only be accessed by one person at a time, and people wishing to see them must be escorted through the Parliament House by a politician’s staffer, and they are all working from home wherever possible so access is very difficult.

We had expected a ‘snow job’, so much paper that we could not find the basic information we needed, but this obfuscation was even greater than we thought. For example the second box that was released had about 600 pages, and over half of it was drafts of the 2017-8 MAAS annual report, the final version of which has been online for 18 months. In boxes 1 to 3 in the second release are well over 1000 almost blank sheets as per the sample attached.

The sensible and democratic thing to do would be to put the stuff online so we could go through it, and Mr Borsak has asked for this to happen. Don’t hold your breath waiting.

Restrictions on the material on the private http://maasbusinesscase.com/website

I have been asked to remove from the website things like copies of the last Inquiry submissions and testimony, as explained on the home page. I have done this but still have them on my computer in a readily searchable form. If you want detailed information and you cannot get it from the search box, email me and I will do a detailed search of my computer.

 

The rest of this bulletin is for the real tragics: more of Tom’s interminable details

Letter to Mr Borsak re the document release

I wish to draw your attention to the eminently unsatisfactory nature of the presentation of the documents released for public inspection on 10 and 12 June 2020 in response to the motion from Mr Borsak that, under Standing Order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House various documents concerned with the Powerhouse Museum ‘move’.

This email requests that the material made available to the public be put online because in the present conditions efficient access is not available and this is exacerbated by the manner of presentation of the material. Around 5,000 documents have been released, and though we were prepared for this, and have teams of people ready to examine them, this process is severely circumscribed because of Covid virus restrictions. We were not able to get in to begin work till Friday 12 June. No access could be given on Monday 15 June because of these restrictions, but we gained entry n Tuesday 16 June for one person.

The problem is exacerbated by the method of presentation of the material and the inclusion of vast amounts of irrelevant material. A prime example is in box 2 of the material received on Wednesday 12 June, of which more than half is drafts of the 2017-18 annual report of MAAS, readily available online and totally irrelevant. Of the first three boxes to be examined on Tuesday 16 June over 80% consisted of  blank forms.

The only democratic solution is for the material to be made available online.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Tom Lockley

 

Further Information:

The material received is as follows:

Received Wednesday 12 June: Two boxes numbered 1 and 2.

Received Friday 12 June, late afternoon:

·        Four boxes labelled 1-4

·        Ten boxes labelled 1-10

·        One box labelled 1.

Only one person can visit the room at a time because of Covid restrictions. The boxes have a generic label and it is impossible to find the contents without considerable effort. Documents are not separated and all documents are copied in black and white on A4 paper: some are illegible, and many documents spread over several pages horizontally and are very difficult to follow.

But this is not the main problem. So far we have found that the overwhelming majority of the documents released are completely useless and irrelevant:

In the material received Wednesday 12 June: Two boxes numbered 1 and 2: in box 2 over half the material in box 1 was successive drafts of the 2017-18 MAAS annual report, .entirely irrelevant to what was sought, and the final draft of this and the 2018-19 report are readily available online. Much of the rest was administrivia emails, eg 5 emails about the reference number for the claim for expenses of the PR firm Aurecon. There was a considerable amount of  PR material prepared by Mr Limkin, uncaptioned pictures of various design aspects and so on. Of the first two boxes, over 600 sheets, I copied 38 sheets of some relevance to the criteria required by the request for information. See the overview attached that I prepared for my colleagues.

On Tuesday 16 June I examined boxes 1 -3 of the box 1-4 group.

Two thirds of box 1 was taken up with pages as attached, as was all of box 2 and over ¾ of box 3 was taken up by blank forms. This was witnessed by Senada from Mr Borsak’s office and by officers of the Legislative Council. Of the approximately 300 printed pages, I found some relevance in about 45 pages, and this included all references to the Powerhouse Museum. Much of the material was documents of the Heritage Council – agendas rather than content, eg documents related to the Powerhouse were listed for presentation, but we did not receive the documents. There was no more material on the Powerhouse Museum heritage assessment than there was for at least 20 other projects.

I also examined the box 1 of the group consisting only of box 1.

This did contain some useful material. Perhaps 20% had relevance to what was sought. Much of it concerned the MDC at Castle Hill and was only of peripheral interest. There were still about 40 misprinted pages, many A4 pages that were illegible, and a particular problem was documents spread over several horizontal pages. These are very difficult to follow.

If Covid restrictions did not apply we could have teams of 3 or 4 people sorting and examining the documents. The task under present circumstances is impossible, and we urge that democracy will be served if this material is placed online.

 

Talking points re new museum design for EIS

There is not a single space in either of the two buildings that is specifically dedicated to museum exhibitions or the collection.

Every so-called presentation space is available for commercial hire, and designed to do double duty for events and performances.

The development has only 25% of the climate controlled exhibition space that the PHM has.

There is nowhere to put the museum’s large objects that is not exposed to flood risk and uncontrolled spikes in temperature and humidity.

They have not worked out how large objects can even be moved into the building.

Back of house collection management – if there is any - is a shared space for catering, dressing rooms, roadies, and technical preparation.  

The only identified storage in the EIS plans on exhibition is a cleaners’ cupboard on level 6.

There is no storage for the collection.

There is no conservation lab.

The staff areas are in the vestibule of the goods lift.

The major P1 event space cannot be supplied from the loading dock.

There is only one loading dock to serve two buildings, events for up to 10,000 people, 10 cafes and bars, a retail hall, 40 apartments, a school boarding house, the bump in bump out for concerts, a cinema, conferences and commercial hire, museum objects on hire rotation and international travelling exhibitions, along with food waste, laundry and rubbish.

There is not one parking space, and not even a loading zone.  

One loading dock to supply a facility aiming for 2 million visitors a year, and badged as the biggest cultural infrastructure investment since the Sydney Opera House.

 

NEWS ON THE GIPA APPLICATION RE THE INDEPENDENT REVIEWS CLAIMED BY MR HARWIN

Our request for information about the six review panels that were claimed by Mr Harwin to have met the Treasury requirements for proper management of the building case has been received. It refuses to give any information apart from the names and dates of the reviews. If they gave a good report, this should be publicised so as to reassure the public. If they gave adverse findings, the public is entitled to know. We think that the real reason that they are not released is that they were purely ‘box ticking’ exercises,  possibly not even involving independent assessors. We have appealed to the  Information and Privacy Commission for a review of this case and will keep you informed.

NOTICE OF DECISION (EDITED BY TL AS SHOWN BY …)

Applicant

Mr Thomas Lockley

File Ref

68

Decision maker

Laura Iskander

Date of decision

2 June 2020

 

(a) Summary of access application

On 6 May 2020, Infrastructure NSW (INSW) received and accepted your access application under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA Act) on the following terms:

·         I refer to the Governments response to the report titled 'Museums and Galleries in New South Wales — Final Report by portfolio committee No. 4 — Legal Affairs' submitted to Mr David Blunt, Clerk of the Parliaments, Parliament House, Macquarie St Sydney on 17 July 2019, online at the Inquiry website.

·         In his response to the Inquiry Finding 1, page 2 of the document, the then Minister for the Arts stated: 'Since February 2016, Infrastructure NSW has undertaken six independent reviews of the New Museum in Western Sydney Project, conducted by more than 30 independent reviewers'.

·         I seek copies of the ensuing documents. If copies are not to be made available, I seek details of the establishment of the authorship groups, names of participants, dates of meetings and subjects of the reviews.

This determination is made on 2 June 2020.

(b)         Summary of decision

INSW has determined that there are six (6) documents that fall within the scope of your access application, which are listed in the attached Schedule of Documents. Each of the six documents contains details of the establishment of the authorship groups, names of participants, dates of meetings and subjects of the reviews.

(c)          Decision

I am authorised by the principal officer, for the purposes of section 9 (3) of the GIPA Act, to decide your access application.

In relation to your request for documents referred to in the NSW Government's response dated 12 July 2019 to the Parliamentary report entitled Museums and galleries in New South Wales — Final Report, I have decided under section 58 (1) (d) of the GIPA Act, to refuse access to the information listed in the attached Schedule of Documents that is marked "withheld", for the reasons set out in this Notice of Decision.

I have decided under section 58 (1) (d) of the GIPA Act, to refuse access to other INSW information constituting "details of the establishment of the authorship groups, names of participants, dates of meetings and subjects of the reviews", for the reasons set out in this Notice of Decision.

Text Box: 1In this Notice of Decision, I will explain my reasons. To meet the requirements of section 61 of the GI PA Act, I need to tell you:


(i)      The reasons for my decision and the findings on any important question of fact underlying those reasons; and

(ii)     The general nature and format of the records containing the information you asked for, with reference to the relevant public interest considerations for and against disclosure.

You can request a review of this decision. For details about how to do so, please see paragraph (i) Review Rights of this Notice of Decision.

Please note that detailed information about INSW's assurance function and review reports is publicly available on INSW's website at the following links:

http://www.intrastructure.nsw.gov.auiprolect-assurance/resourcesinsw-qateway-reviews/

http://www.intrastructure.nsw.qov.au/proiect-assurance)

(d)    Searches for information

Under the GIPA Act, INSW must conduct reasonable searches for the government information you sought in your access application. I have caused searches to be made to INSW's electronic records to identify information falling within the scope of your access application.

(e)    The public interest test

Under section 9 (1) of the GI PA Act, you have a legally enforceable right to access the information you asked for, unless there is an overriding public interest against its disclosure.

Further, under section 5 of the GIPA Act, there is a presumption in favour of disclosing government information unless there is an overriding public interest against its disclosure.

To decide whether or not there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of the information you asked for, I applied the public interest test set out in section 13 of the GIPA Act. I applied the public interest test by:

(i)      Identifying any public interest considerations in favour of disclosure;

(ii)     Identifying any relevant public interest considerations against disclosure; and

(iii)   Deciding where the balance between them lies.
I did this in the way required by section 15 of the GIPA Act, which is:

(i)      In accordance with section 15 (a) of the GIPA Act, in a way that promotes the objects of the GI PA Act;

(ii)     In accordance with section 15 (b) of the GIPA Act, with regard to any relevant guidelines issued by the Information Commissioner;

(iii)   In accordance with section 15 (c) of the GIPA Act, without taking into account the fact that disclosure of information may cause embarrassment to, or a loss of confidence in, the Government (as that fact is irrelevant);

2


(iv) In accordance with section 15(d) of the GIPA Act, without taking into account the fact that disclosure of information might be misinterpreted or misunderstood by any person (as that fact is irrelevant); and

(I) In accordance with section 15 (e) of the GIPA Act, with regard to the fact that the disclosure of information to you under the GIPA Act cannot be made with conditions on the use or disclosure of that information. As such, disclosure is effectively to the world at large.

(f) Public interest considerations in favour of disclosure

Under section 12 (1) of the GIPA Act, there is a general public interest in favour of disclosing government information. Section 12 (2) of the GIPA Act sets out some examples of other public interest considerations in favour of disclosure. However, I am not limited to those considerations in deciding your access application.

I find the following considerations in favour of disclosure are relevant to your access application:

(i)      The information could reasonably be expected to provide evidence of the decision-making process with respect to decisions on issues of public importance.

(ii)     The information may promote discussion of public affairs, enhance Government accountability and contribute to positive and informed debate about an issue of public importance.

I consider the release of the information you requested could both reasonably be expected to provide evidence of decision-making processes with respect to issues of public importance and contribute to further open public discussions and informed debate about the New Powerhouse Museum in Parramatta project.

Information about the New Powerhouse Museum in Parramatta is an issue of importance in that local area, and more widely. Members of the public have a right to be informed about publicly funded infrastructure projects.

However, as explained in paragraph (g) below, I find there are the following public interest considerations against disclosure of documents:

·         marked in the attached Schedule of Documents as "withheld" under section 14 (1) of the GIPA Act (Cabinet information); and

·         that reveal the authors and participants of the reviews, the dates of meetings and subject matter of the reviews under section 14 (1) of the GIPA Act (Cabinet information), and section 14 (2) table clauses 1 (g) and 3 (a) of the GI PA Act.

I have attributed a high level of weight to the considerations against releasing relevant information that is covered by sections 14 (1) and 14 (2) of the GIPA Act.

(g) Public interest considerations against disclosure

I have attributed a low level of weight to the considerations in favour of releasing information that falls within clauses 1 (g) and 3 (a) of the table in section 14 (2) GIPA Act. On balance, in applying the public interest test, I consider there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of that information.


3


I consider there is a conclusive presumption of an overriding public interest against the disclosure of information to which section 14(1), schedule 1, clauses 2 (1) (b) and (e) of the GIPA Act applies, as set out in the attached Schedule of Documents.

My reasons are summarised below:

Responsible and effective government; Personal information

In accordance with section 14 (2) of the GIPA Act, public interest considerations against disclosure of government information may be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of government information.

I have identified the following provision of the GIPA Act as relevant to information that reveals the authors and participants of the reviews:

(i)          Clause 1 (g) of the Table in section 14 (2) GIPA Act — where disclosure could reasonably be expected to have the effect of founding an action against an agency for breach of confidence or otherwise result in the disclosure of information provided to an agency in confidence; and

(ii)         Clause 3 (a) of the Table in section 14 (2) GIPA Act - where disclosure could reasonably be expected to have the effect of revealing an individual's personal information or contravene an information protection principle under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998.

The information listed in the Schedule of Documents contains confidential information of INSW and other Government agencies. The Infrastructure Investment Assurance

Framework (IIAF), which is publicly on INSW's website, sets out in section 2.6 (see extract in Annexure B[1]) how review reports are treated, and restrictions on their disclosure. As well as containing Cabinet information, they are also confidential. In addition to the restrictions on release of review reports, INSW has implemented strict confidentiality protocols for the conduct of reviews and the provision of information to INSW and review teams for the purposes of assurance reviews under the IIAF. INSW considers there could be grounds for delivery agencies to claim that INSW has breached its obligations of confidence to those agencies, if this information were to be released.

While INSW holds information concerning the authors and participants of the reviews, such information was obtained and used by INSW in accordance with strict privacy and confidentiality requirements. Disclosure by INSW of such personal information without the consent of the relevant persons would constitute a breach of the following information protection principles under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998, which states:

10.             Only use personal information for the purpose it was collected unless the person has given their consent, or the purpose of use is directly related to the purpose for which it was collected or to prevent or lessen a serious or imminent threat to a person's health or safety.

11.             Only disclose personal information with a person's consent or if the person was told at the time that it would be disclosed, if disclosure is directly related to the purpose for which the information was collected and there is no reason to believe the person would object, or the person has been made aware that information of that kind is usually disclosed, or if disclosure is necessary to prevent a serious and imminent threat to any person's health or safety.

 

INSW has not identified as a permissible use release of personal information of review authors and participants to the public at large. Personal information collected and used by INSW for the purposes of undertaking its assurance role in respect of Government projects may not be released without the persons' consent.

In addition, to the extent that details of the establishment of the authorship groups, names of participants, dates of meetings and subjects of the reviews is contained in the documents listed in the Schedule of Documents, Cabinet confidentiality also applies. Please see the section below.

Cabinet information

Section 14 (1) of the GIPA Act provides that it is to be conclusively presumed that there is an overriding public interest against the disclosure of any of the government information described in schedule 1 of the GIPA Act.

Schedule 1, clause 2 (1) (b) relevantly provides:

It is to be conclusively presumed that there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of information with respect to a document prepared for the purpose of its being submitted to Cabinet for Cabinet's consideration (whether or not the document is actually submitted to Cabinet).

Schedule 1, clause 2 (1) (e) relevantly provides:

It is to be conclusively presumed that there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of information contained in a document prepared before or after Cabinet's deliberation or decision on a matter that reveals or tends to reveal the position that a particular Minister has taken, is taking, will take, is considering taking, or has been recommended to take, on the matter in Cabinet

The NSW Cabinet process is based on conventions, the most significant of which are collective responsibility for decisions of Cabinet and confidentiality of Cabinet deliberations. Procedures to protect the confidentiality of Cabinet proceedings include the management of official Cabinet records on a secure document management system and the marking of Cabinet documents as "Sensitive NSW Cabinet".

It was noted with approval in Cooper v Ministry of Health [2018] NSWCATAD 37, Nicholls v Transport for NSW [2017] NSWCATAD 361 and McKay v Transport for NSW [2017] NSWCATAD 212, that the Cabinet process was the subject of detailed evidence accepted by the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in Bennison v Department of Premier and Cabinet [2016[ NSWCATAD 101 that:

Decisions of Cabinet are based upon advice it receives from Ministers, government officers and in some cases external consultants. Usually, the main piece of advice to Cabinet is in the form of a Cabinet Submission. A Cabinet Submission is a submission made to Cabinet or a Committee of Cabinet by the Minister responsible for the subject discussed in the Submission. It constitutes the submitting Minister's principal communication with Cabinet to assist its deliberations on the matters before it. The Submission reflects that Minister's views or opinion on the issue he/she presents to Cabinet....

Text Box: 5In some cases copies of external consultant's reports are annexed to a Cabinet Submission. Cabinet relies significantly on the advice and information it receives from Ministers, government officers and, on occasion, external consultants to make its decisions. As such it is vital to the development of public policy and to the good

durrirnisrration of the affairs of the State that Cabinet be able to receive confidential advice and information on the matters that come before it for consideration. In order to achieve this, it is necessary that Cabinet and its Ministers be able to be confident that advice and information which Ministers put before Cabinet and advice they receive from government officers, or external experts, will remain confidential. It is also necessary to ensure that the persons preparing the advice for Cabinet and Ministers are confident that any advice and views they seek from other Departmental officers or from external experts will remain confidential.....

The documents in the Schedule of Documents contain information prepared for the dominant purpose of submitting the documents to Cabinet as part of INSW's statutory assurance functions, and for the purpose of formulating and providing advice to the NSW Cabinet and/or information that may reveal or tend to reveal the position of a Minister in relation to the content of Cabinet submissions and attachments. Release of these documents would disclose information covered by Cabinet confidentiality.

Content of the documents listed in the attached Schedule of Documents and information otherwise held by INSW that constitutes "details of the establishment of the authorship groups, names of participants, dates of meetings and subjects of the reviews" is covered by Cabinet confidentiality for the same reasons.

I have decided that under:

(a)       section 14 (1) and schedule 1, clause 2 (1) (b) of the GIPA Act, there is a conclusive presumption that there is an overriding public interest against the disclosure of:

(i)                      the documents listed in the Schedule of Documents; and

(ii)                     information held by INSW that constitutes "details of the establishment of the authorship groups, names of participants, dates of meetings and subjects of the reviews",

and they cannot be released under the GIPA Act;

(b)       section 14 (1) and schedule 1, clause 2 (1) (e) of the GIPA Act, there is a conclusive presumption that there is an overriding public interest against the disclosure of:

(i)                the documents listed in the Schedule of Documents; and

(ii)              information held by INSW that constitutes "details of the establishment of the authorship groups, names of participants, dates of meetings and subjects of the reviews" ,

and they cannot be released under the GIPA Act;

(c)       section 14 (2) table clause 1 (g) of the GIPA Act, there is an overriding public interest consideration that disclosure of the documents listed in the Schedule of Documents could reasonably be expected to have the effect of founding an action against an agency for breach of confidence or otherwise result in the disclosure of information provided to an agency in confidence and INSW withholds their release; and

(d)       section 14 (2) table clause 3 (a) of the GIPA Act, there is an overriding public interest consideration that disclosure of:

the documents listed in the Schedule of Documents; and

(ii)       information held by INSW that constitutes "details of the establishment of the authorship groups, names of participants",

6


could reasonably be expected to have the effect of revealing an individual's personal information or contravene an information protection principle under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 and INSW withholds their release.

(h)  Disclosure log

If information that would be of interest to other members of the public is released in response to a formal access application, an agency must record certain details about the application in its 'disclosure log' (under sections 25 and 26 of the GIPA Act).

In the letter acknowledging receipt of your valid application, sent on 11 May 2020, you were told about the disclosure log. You were also advised of your right to object to the inclusion of details about your access application in the disclosure log, in certain circumstances. You did not object to details about your application being included in the disclosure log.

(i)    Review Rights

If you disagree with any of the decisions in this notice that are reviewable, you may seek a review under Part 5 of the GIPA Act. Before you do so, I encourage you to contact me to discuss your concerns. My contact details are set out below.

You have three review options:

·           internal review by another officer of this agency, who is no less senior than me;

·           external review by the Information Commissioner; or

·           external review by the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT).

You have 20 working days from the date of this notice to apply for an internal review. If you would prefer to have the decision reviewed externally, you have 40 working days from the date of this Notice to apply for a review by the Information Commissioner or NCAT.

To assist you, I have enclosed a fact sheet published by the Information and Privacy Commission NSW (IPC), entitled Your review rights under the GIPA Act. You will also find some useful information and frequently asked questions on the IPC's website: www.ipc.nsw.gov.au.

You can also contact the IPC on freecall 1800 IPC NSW (1800 472 679).

Laura Iskander

A/General Counsel - Projects

Infrastructure NSW

Text Box: 7Tel: (02) 8016 0100
Date: 2 June 2020


ANNEXURE A

SCHEDULE OF DOCUMENTS

 #1: December 2016 – MAAS review report; #2 February 2017 - MAAS New Museum in Parramatta review report; #3: January 2018 - New Museum in Parramatta report; #4: March 2018 - New Museum in Western Sydney report #5: April 2018 - MAAS Ultimo report #6: - November 2018 - New Museum in Parramatta report

sd

To anyone still reading – Well done!

Campaign to save the Powerhouse

Australia’s major museum of arts and sciences in Sydney’s most evocative heritage building. For more information
https://powerhousemuseumalliance.com/ See also:  http://maasbusinesscase.com/ http://lockoweb.com/phm/

Facebook pages https://www.facebook.com/savethepowerhouse/ https://www.facebook.com/savethepowerhouse/



[1] Not printed here because of file conversion problems (tl)