Academic literature on the topic 'Australia. – Freedom of Information Act 1982'

This article considers freedom of information in Australia and examines some of the practical barriers to access that persist following the 2009–2010 changes to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). It considers, by way of case study, the issues of practical refusal, charges and delays, and draws a brief comparison with UK law and practice. It concludes that the current model in Australia must change if greater transparency is to result.

The National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) is charged with promoting occupational health and safety and responsible environmental management in the offshore petroleum industry and ensuring industry compliance with the relevant commonwealth legislation. For NOPSEMA to exercise these functions effectively and transparently, sharing information through industry experience is integral. Although NOPSEMA already publishes widely–including guidance material, industry performance data, and safety alerts–it is working towards increasing publication of more detailed and specific industry information, such as enforcement notices. Government regulators publishing industry information of this kind is not new in Australia or overseas and is often used by regulators as a tool for promoting industry compliance. Communicating and sharing information with industry and the public are important activities of governments. Information sharing can expand knowledge, enable innovation, enhance government accountability and transparency, and even save lives by learning from others' experiences. Recently, the Australian Government has shown a deeper commitment through changes to the Freedom of Information Act 1982, making government information more accessible and open to the public. This extended abstract discusses the benefits of increasing publication of industry information to promote NOPSEMA's functions and objectives for delivering a safe and environmentally responsible offshore petroleum industry.

AbstractObjectiveNutrient Reference Values (NRV) are evidence-based benchmarks for assessing the dietary adequacy of individuals and population groups as well as informing public health nutrition policies and programmes. The present paper presents the findings of an analysis of the views of submitters to a draft document associated with the development of the 2006 NRV for Australia and New Zealand. The aim of the study was to explore how these views were reflected in the policy-making process and final policy document.DesignThe information necessary to fulfil this aim required access to stakeholder submissions to the NRV development process and this necessitated exploiting the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia’s Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 1982. We understand that the present research represents the first time that an FOI request seeking information about a National Health and Medical Research Council food and nutrition policy process has been made and therefore is novel in its approach to public health nutrition policy analysis.ResultsThe analysis of stakeholder submissions identified that stakeholders had particular concerns about the conduct of the review process and the future application of the nutrient values to policy and programmes. There is a lack of evidence that the majority of stakeholder comments were addressed in the final NRV document.ConclusionAlthough these findings cannot be interpreted to assess the validity or otherwise of the set nutrient values, they do raise questions about the process for their development and the adequacy of the final document to reflect the views of key stakeholders.

“The right to know is the right to live.”Aruna Roy (1946— ), Indian social activist Ongoing dissatisfaction among information requesters, including journalists, has discredited the early and partially heroic narratives of the Aotearoa New Zealand freedom-of-information (FOI) regime. The revolutionary and celebrated Official Information Act 1982 (OIA 1982) has remained virtually unchanged since its inception, despite ongoing calls for reform. This article examines why the OIA 1982 was so transformative, calling on the literature and two thematic analyses of historic parliamentary debates as it explores the thinking of the time and historicises the moment lawmakers cemented in statute notions of an open society. All media rely on this law, and the idea of FOI behind it, to be able to flourish, even if some are more acutely aware of that than others. All media practitioners, from journalists to filmmakers, benefit from the informed social discourse that results from FOI. To explore its failings in Aotearoa New Zealand today and, indeed, to start to imagine remedies, this research argues an important first step is to better understand the thinking of the time.

An analysis of the Report on the Co-Regulatory Scheme for Internet Content Regulation covering the period July to December 2000, released by the ABA on 19 April 2001, demonstrates that the scheme has had a minimal impact on internet content hosted in Australia. The ABA's refusal to release any further information about the content that has been removed, under freedom of information legislation, suggests the government believes that secrecy is necessary to foster the perception that the scheme is actually effective. However, its limited effectiveness does not justify its cost. This paper maintains that taxpayers' money would be better spent in funding the police to track down and prosecute the producers and distributors of child pornography.

The Commonwealth Government and a number of State governments are proposingto introduce legislation based on the Information Privacy Principles contained in thePrivacy Act 1988 (Cwlth). This will allow individuals access to any personalinformation held on them by any organisation or person, including privatepractitioners, private health facilities and State government agencies. This articlediscusses this proposed legislation and its implications for the health sector.Although in the public health area patients can already gain access to their medicalrecords through the use of the various Freedom of Information Acts and, in the caseof Commonwealth government agencies, the Privacy Act 1988 (Cwlth), the proposeddata protection legislation will provide more than access rights to individuals. Theeffect of the proposed legislation on the private sector, where no obligation exists onthe part of the doctor to grant a patient access to his or her records, will be substantial.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present findings of a survey conducted during 2012 in Iceland with the intent of examining public opinion on government provision of information, i.e. whether the public felt that the authorities withheld information, either about subjects of general public interest or about public expenditures, if the authorities felt there was a reason to do so. Design/methodology/approach – A survey questionnaire was sent in March 2012 to almost two thousand Icelanders. This was a random sample selected from the National Registry. The response rate was almost 67 per cent. The survey was modelled on other research and resources that had examined trust toward public authorities and the influence of Freedom of Information Acts on government information practices. Findings – The survey discovered that the greater part of the citizenry felt that the authorities did keep important information of general public interest secret often or sometimes. Only 2-3 per cent of them believed that this never happened. Most of those surveyed felt as well that important information about public expenditures was often or sometimes withheld. Only 3-5 per cent of the respondents were of the opinion that this never happened. Practical implications – The results could be of value to public authorities that want to improve the provision of information and practice according to freedom of information act. They could also bring varied and valuable opportunities to the profession of records managers as well as others who practice information management. Originality/value – The survey adds valuable information and fulfils a need for a better understanding of what the public believes regarding government provision of information in Iceland. Although the survey is limited to Iceland, these findings may also be of value to public authorities and researchers in the Western World, Australia and New Zealand, to give a few examples where the culture and the practice of government may not be that different, as well as in other countries. The survey can lay the foundation for further research into the field.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present, on the one hand, the findings of a survey conducted during 2012 in Iceland and, on the other hand, the results of interviews held in 2015 concerning why it was felt that the authorities withheld information either about subjects of general public interest or about public expenditures. Design/methodology/approach A survey questionnaire was sent in March 2012 to almost 2,000 Icelanders randomly selected from the National Registry. The response rate was almost 67 per cent. As to the interviews held in 2015, these were with individuals who were known to understand well the government’s actions, both as to provision of information to the public and the opposite, suppression of information. The interviewees were chosen purposively. The survey was modelled on other research and resources concerning open public information and other research that had examined trust towards public authorities and the influence of freedom of information acts on government information practices. Findings The research revealed that both participants in the questionnaire survey and the six interviewees in the later study felt that information was kept secret for a variety of reasons. Most felt that information was kept under wraps by the government, both about subjects of general public interest or about public expenditures, and that both transparency and traceability were less than sufficient in the public administration of Iceland. Practical implications The results could be of value to public authorities who want to improve the provision of information and practices according to the freedom of information act. They could also bring diverse and valuable opportunities to the profession of records managers as to documentation and registration, as well as others who practice information management. Originality/value The survey adds valuable information and fulfils a need for a better understanding of why public authorities suppress the provision of information in Iceland. Although the research cited was limited to Iceland, the findings may be of value also to public authorities and researchers in the Western World, Australia and New Zealand to give a few examples where the culture and the practice of government may not be that different, as well as in other countries. The two studies can, therefore, lay the foundation for further research into the field.

Sharenting is a habit of using social media to share content that disseminates pictures, videos, information, and parenting styles for their children. The purpose of this article is to describe the sharenting phenomenon that occurs among young parents, and the importance of parenting programs, rather than protecting children's privacy. Writing articles use a qualitative approach as a literature review method that utilizes various scientific articles describing the sharenting phenomenon in various countries. The findings show that sharenting behaviour can create the spread of children's identity openly on social media and tends not to protect children's privacy and even seems to exploit children. Apart from that, sharenting can also create pressure on the children themselves and can even have an impact on online crime. This article is expected to provide benefits to parents regarding the importance of maintaining attitudes and behaviour when sharing and maintaining children's privacy and rights on social media. Keywords: Sharenting on social media, Children's Privacy, Parenting Program References: Åberg, E., & Huvila, J. (2019). Hip children, good mothers – children’s clothing as capital investment? Young Consumers, 20(3), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1108/YC-06-2018-00816 Altafim, E. R. P., & Linhares, M. B. M. (2016). Universal violence and child maltreatment prevention programs for parents: A systematic review. Psychosocial Intervention, 25(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psi.2015.10.003 Archer, C., & Kao, K.-T. (2018). Mother, baby, and Facebook makes three: Does social media provide social support for new mothers? Media International Australia, 168(1), 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X18783016 Bartholomew, M. K., Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Glassman, M., Kamp Dush, C. M., & Sullivan, J. M. (2012). New Parents’ Facebook Use at the Transition to Parenthood. Family Relations, 61(3), 455–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00708.x Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139. https://doi.org/10.1086/209154 Belk, R. W. (2013). Extended Self in a Digital World: Table 1. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 477–500. https://doi.org/10.1086/671052 Benedetto, L., & Ingrassia, M. (2021). Digital Parenting: Raising and Protecting Children in Media World. In L. Benedetto & M. Ingrassia (Eds.), Parenting. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92579 Berns, R. (2016). Child, family, school, community. Socialization and support. Stanford. United States of America, 5(64), 93–98. Bessant, C. (2017). Parental sharenting and the privacy of children. Northumbria University Faculty of Business and Law, Faculty and Doctoral Conference, 28th - 29th June 2017, Newcastle, UK. Bessant, C. (2018). Sharenting: Balancing the Conflicting Rights of Parents and Children. Communications Law, 23(1), 7–24. Bessant, C., & Nottingham, E. (2020). Sharenting in a socially distanced world. Parenting for a Digital Future., 1–2. Biglan, A., Flay, B. R., Embry, D. D., & Sandier, I. N. (2012). The Critical Role of Nurturing Environments for Promoting Human Weil-Being. American Psychologist, 16. Blum-Ross, A., & Livingstone, S. (2017). “Sharenting,” parent blogging, and the boundaries of the digital self. Popular Communication, 15(2), 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/15405702.2016.1223300 Brooks, J. (2008). The Process of Parenting. In The Process of Parenting (pp. 116–117). Pustaka Belajar. Brosch, A. (2016). When the child is born into the internet: Sharenting as a growing trend among parents on Facebook. New Educational Review, 43(1), 224–235. https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.2016.43.1.19 Brosch, A. (2018). Sharenting – Why do parents violate their children’s privacy? New Educational Review, 54(4), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.2018.54.4.06 Byrne, S., Rodrigo, M. J., & Máiquez, M. L. (2014). Patterns of individual change in a parenting program for child maltreatment and their relation to family and professional environments. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38(3), 457–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.12.008 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014). Understanding Child Maltreatment 2014 (p. 2). http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/cm-factsheet-a.pdf Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). (2002). Protecting Children’s Privacy Under COPPA: A Survey on Compliance. Federal Trade Commission. http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/coppa1.htm Choi, G. Y., & Lewallen, J. (2018). “Say Instagram, Kids!”: Examining Sharenting and Children’s Digital Representations on Instagram. Howard Journal of Communications, 29(2), 144–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2017.1327380 Collins English Dictionary. (2014). Opinion—Definition of opinion by The Free Dictionary. 12th Edition. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/database Comer, J. S., & Barlow, D. H. (2014). The occasional case against broad dissemination and implementation: Retaining a role for specialty care in the delivery of psychological treatments. American Psychologist, 69(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033582 Durkin, K. F., & Bryant, C. D. (1999). Propagandizing pederasty: A thematic analysis of the on-line exculpatory accounts of unrepentant pedophiles. Deviant Behavior, 20(2), 103–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/016396299266524 Fitri, S. (2017). Dampak Foditif dan Negatif Sosial Media terhadap Sosial Anak. NATURALISTIC: Jurnal Kajian Penelitian Pendidikan Dan Pembelajaran, 1(2), 118–123. https://doi.org/10.35568/naturalistic.v1i2.5 Fox, A. K., & Hoy, M. G. (2019). Smart Devices, Smart Decisions? Implications of Parents’ Sharenting for Children’s Online Privacy: An Investigation of Mothers. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 38(4), 414–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743915619858290 Fridha, M., & Irawan, R. E. (2020). Eksploitasi Anak Melalui Akun Instagram (Analisis Wacana Kritis Praktek Sharenting oleh Selebgram Ashanty & Rachel Venya). Komuniti: Jurnal Komunikasi dan Teknologi Informasi, 12(1), 68–80. https://doi.org/10.23917/komuniti.v12i1.10703 Friedman, S. J. (2000). Children and the World Wide Web. University Press of America. Hammond, S. I., Müller, U., Carpendale, J. I. M., Bibok, M. B., & Liebermann-Finestone, D. P. (2012). The effects of parental scaffolding on preschoolers’ executive function. Developmental Psychology, 48(1), 271–281. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025519 Holzer, P. J., Higgins, J., Bromfield, L., Richardson, N., & Higgins, D. (2006). The effectiveness of parent education and home visiting child maltreatment prevention programs. Australian Institute of Family Studies. Koetse, M. (2019). ‘Sharenting’ on Chinese Social Media: When Parents Are Posting Too Many Baby Pics on WeChat. What’s on Weibo Reporting Social Trends in China. Krisnawati, E. (2016). Mempertanyakan Privasi di Era Selebgram: Masih Adakah? Jurnal IIlmu Komunikasi, 13(2), 179. https://doi.org/10.24002/jik.v13i2.682 Latipah, E., Adi Kistoro, H. C., Hasanah, F. F., & Putranta, H. (2020). Elaborating motive and psychological impact of sharenting in millennial parents. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(10), 4807–4817. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.081052 Leaver, T. (2020). Balancing privacy: Sharenting, intimate surveillance, and the right to be forgotten. In The Routledge Companion to Digital Media and Children. https://doi.org/10.33767/osf.io/fwmr2 Lee, S. J., Ward, K. P., Chang, O. D., & Downing, K. M. (2021). Parenting activities and the transition to home-based education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Children and Youth Services Review, 122, 105585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105585 Lundahl, B., Risser, H., & Lovejoy, M. (2006). A meta-analysis of parent training: Moderators and follow-up effects. Clinical Psychology Review, 26(1), 86–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2005.07.004 Lwin, M., Stanaland, A., & Miyazaki, A. (2008). Protecting children’s privacy online: How parental mediation strategies affect website safeguard effectiveness. Journal of Retailing, 84(2), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2008.04.004 Manganello, J. A., Falisi, A. L., Roberts, K. J., Smith, K. C., & McKenzie, L. B. (2016). Pediatric injury information seeking for mothers with young children: The role of health literacy and ehealth literacy. Journal of Communication in Healthcare, 9(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538068.2016.1192757 Manotipya, P., & Ghazinour, K. (2020). Children’s Online Privacy from Parents’ Perspective. Procedia Computer Science, 177, 178–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.10.026 Marasli, M., Sühendan, E., Yilmazturk, N. H., & Cok, F. (2016). Parents’ shares on social networking sites about their children: Sharenting. Anthropologist, 24(2), 399–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2016.11892031 Mikton, C., & Butchart, A. (2009). Child maltreatment prevention: A systematic review of reviews. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 87(5), 353–361. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.08.057075 Miyazaki, A. D. (2008). Online Privacy and the Disclosure of Cookie Use: Effects on Consumer Trust and Anticipated Patronage. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 27(1), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.27.1.19 Morris, A. S., Robinson, L. R., Hays-Grudo, J., Claussen, A. H., Hartwig, S. A., & Treat, A. E. (2017). Targeting Parenting in Early Childhood: A Public Health Approach to Improve Outcomes for Children Living in Poverty. Child Development, 88(2), 388–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12743 Moser, C., Chen, T., & Schoenebeck, S. Y. (2017). Parents? And Children?s Preferences about Parents Sharing about Children on Social Media. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 5221–5225. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025587 Nooraeni, R. (2017). Implementasi Program Parenting Dalam Menumbuhkan Perilaku Pengasuhan Positif Orang Tua Di PAUD Tulip Tarogong Kaler Garut. Jurnal Pendidikan Luar Sekolah, 13(2). Nottingham, E. (2013). ‘Dad! Cut that Part Out!’ Children’s Rights to Privacy in the Age of ‘Generation Tagged’: Sharenting, digital kidnapping and the child micro-celebrity. In Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling. O’Keeffe, G. S., Clarke-Pearson, K., & Council on Communications and Media. (2011). The Impact of Social Media on Children, Adolescents, and Families. PEDIATRICS, 127(4), 800–804. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-0054 Pan, X., & Yu, H. (2018). Different Effects of Cognitive Shifting and Intelligence on Creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 52(3), 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.144 Prasetyo, Dimas., Syahnas, A. N. R., Fajriani, A., Nugraha, H. G., & Suryani, S. (2019). “Saya hanya mengunggah foto dan video anak saya ”. Intenational Conference on ECEP. Putra, A. M., & Febrina, A. (2019). Fenomena Selebgram Anak: Memahami Motif Orang tua. Jurnal ASPIKOM, 3(6), 1093–1108. https://doi.org/10.24329/aspikom.v3i6.396 Sakashita, M., & Kimura, J. (2011). Daughter as Mother’s Extended Self. In European advances in consumer research (In A. Bradshaw, C. Hackley, P. Maclaran (Eds.), Vol. 9, pp. 283–289). Association for Consumer Research. Salleh, A. S., & Noor, N. A. Mohd. (2019). Sharenting: Implikasinya dari Persepektif Perundangan Malaysia. Jurnal Undangundang Malaysia, 31(1), 121–156. Sanders, M. (2012). Development, evaluation, and multinational dissemination of the triple P-Positive Parenting Program. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 8, 345–379. Santini, P. M., & Williams, L. C. (2016). Parenting Programs to Prevent Corporal Punishment: A Systematic Review. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto), 26(63), 121–129. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-43272663201614 Sarkadi, A., Dahlberg, A., Fängström, K., & Warner, G. (2020). Children want parents to ask for permission before ‘sharenting’. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 56(6), 981–983. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpc.14945 Shumaker, C., Loranger, D., & Dorie, A. (2017). Dressing for the Internet: A study of female self-presentation via dress on Instagram. Fashion, Style & Popular Culture, 4(3), 365–382. https://doi.org/10.1386/fspc.4.3.365_1 Siibak, A., & Traks, K. (2019). Viewpoints The dark sides of sharenting. Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies, 11(1), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1386/cjcs.11.1.115 Sobur, A. (2001). Pers, Hak Privasi, dan Hak Publik. Mediator, 2(1), 81–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.24329/aspikom.v3i6.396 Steinberg, S. B. (2017). Sharenting: Children’s Privacy in the Age of social media. EMORY LAW JOURNAL, 66, 47. Traube, D. E., Hsiao, H.-Y., Rau, A., Hunt-O’Brien, D., Lu, L., & Islam, N. (2020). Advancing Home Based Parenting Programs through the Use of Telehealth Technology. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29(1), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01458-w Trivette, C. M., & Dunst, C. J. (2009). Community-Based Parent Support Programs. 7. van der Velden, M., & El Emam, K. (2013). “Not all my friends need to know”: A qualitative study of teenage patients, privacy, and social media. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 20(1), 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-000949 Verswijvel, K., Walrave, M., Hardies, K., & Heirman, W. (2019). Sharenting, is it a good or a bad thing? Understanding how adolescents think and feel about sharenting on social network sites. Children and Youth Services Review, 104, 104401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104401 Wagner, A., & Gasche, L. A. (2018). Sharenting: Making decisions about other’s privacy on social networking sites. MKWI 2018 - Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik. World Health Organization (WHO). (2016). INSPIRE seven strategies for ending violence against children. World Health Organization. Wyatt Kaminski, J., Valle, L. A., Filene, J. H., & Boyle, C. L. (2008). A Meta-analytic Review of Components Associated with Parent Training Program Effectiveness. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36(4), 567–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-007-9201-9 Zeeuw, A. De, Media, M. A. N., & Culture, D. (2018). Exposing Childhoods Online (Issue June).

Introduction I think the Privacy Act is a huge edifice to protect the minority of things that could go wrong. I’ve got a good example for you, I’m just trying to think … yeah the worst one I’ve ever seen was the Balga Youth Program where we took these students on a reward excursion all the way to Fremantle and suddenly this very alienated kid started to jump under a bus, a moving bus so the kid had to be restrained. The cops from Fremantle arrived because all the very good people in Fremantle were alarmed at these grown-ups manhandling a kid and what had happened is that DCD [Department of Community Development] had dropped him into the program but hadn’t told us that this kid had suicide tendencies. No, it’s just chronically bad. And there were caseworkers involved and … there is some information that we have to have that doesn’t get handed down. Rather than a blanket rule that everything’s confidential coming from them to us, and that was a real live situation, and you imagine how we’re trying to handle it, we had taxis going from Balga to Fremantle to get staff involved and we only had to know what to watch out for and we probably could have … well what you would have done is not gone on the excursion I suppose (School Principal, quoted in Balnaves and Luca 49). These comments are from a school principal in Perth, Western Australia in a school that is concerned with “at-risk” students, and in a context where the Commonwealth Privacy Act 1988 has imposed limitations on their work. Under this Act it is illegal to pass health, personal or sensitive information concerning an individual on to other people. In the story cited above the Department of Community Development personnel were apparently protecting the student’s “negative right”, that is, “freedom from” interference by others. On the other hand, the principal’s assertion that such information should be shared is potentially a “positive right” because it could cause something to be done in that person’s or society’s interests. Balnaves and Luca noted that positive and negative rights have complex philosophical underpinnings, and they inform much of how we operate in everyday life and of the dilemmas that arise (49). For example, a ban on euthanasia or the “assisted suicide” of a terminally ill person can be a “positive right” because it is considered to be in the best interests of society in general. However, physicians who tacitly approve a patient’s right to end their lives with a lethal dose by legally prescribed dose of medication could be perceived as protecting the patient’s “negative right” as a “freedom from” interference by others. While acknowledging the merits of collaboration between people who are working to improve the wellbeing of students “at-risk”, this paper examines some of the barriers to collaboration. Based on both primary and secondary sources, and particularly on oral testimonies, the paper highlights the tension between privacy as a negative right and collaborative helping as a positive right. It also points to other difficulties and dilemmas within and between the institutions engaged in this joint undertaking. The authors acknowledge Michel Foucault’s contention that discourse is power. The discourse on privacy and the sharing of information in modern societies suggests that privacy is a negative right that gives freedom from bureaucratic interference and protects the individual. However, arguably, collaboration between agencies that are working to support individuals “at-risk” requires a measured relaxation of the requirements of this negative right. Children and young people “at-risk” are a case in point. Towards Collaboration From a series of interviews conducted in 2004, the school authorities at Balga Senior High School and Midvale Primary School, people working for the Western Australian departments of Community Development, Justice, and Education and Training in Western Australia, and academics at the Edith Cowan and Curtin universities, who are working to improve the wellbeing of students “at-risk” as part of an Australian Research Council (ARC) project called Smart Communities, have identified students “at-risk” as individuals who have behavioural problems and little motivation, who are alienated and possibly violent or angry, who under-perform in the classroom and have begun to truant. They noted also that students “at-risk” often suffer from poor health, lack of food and medication, are victims of unwanted pregnancies, and are engaged in antisocial and illegal behaviour such as stealing cars and substance abuse. These students are also often subject to domestic violence (parents on drugs or alcohol), family separation, and homelessness. Some are depressed or suicidal. Sometimes cultural factors contribute to students being regarded as “at-risk”. For example, a social worker in the Smart Communities project stated: Cultural factors sometimes come into that as well … like with some Muslim families … they can flog their daughter or their son, usually the daughter … so cultural factors can create a risk. Research elsewhere has revealed that those children between the ages of 11-17 who have been subjected to bullying at school or physical or sexual abuse at home and who have threatened and/or harmed another person or suicidal are “high-risk” youths (Farmer 4). In an attempt to bring about a positive change in these alienated or “at-risk” adolescents, Balga Senior High School has developed several programs such as the Youth Parents Program, Swan Nyunger Sports Education program, Intensive English Centre, and lower secondary mainstream program. The Midvale Primary School has provided services such as counsellors, Aboriginal child protection workers, and Aboriginal police liaison officers for these “at-risk” students. On the other hand, the Department of Community Development (DCD) has provided services to parents and caregivers for children up to 18 years. Academics from Edith Cowan and Curtin universities are engaged in gathering the life stories of these “at-risk” students. One aspect of this research entails the students writing their life stories in a secured web portal that the universities have developed. The researchers believe that by engaging the students in these self-exploration activities, they (the students) would develop a more hopeful outlook on life. Though all agencies and educational institutions involved in this collaborative project are working for the well-being of the children “at-risk”, the Privacy Act forbids the authorities from sharing information about them. A school psychologist expressed concern over the Privacy Act: When the Juvenile Justice Department want to reintroduce a student into a school, we can’t find out anything about this student so we can’t do any preplanning. They want to give the student a fresh start, so there’s always that tension … eventually everyone overcomes [this] because you realise that the student has to come to the school and has to be engaged. Of course, the manner and consequences of a student’s engagement in school cannot be predicted. In the scenario described above students may have been given a fair chance to reform themselves, which is their positive right but if they turn out to be at “high risk” it would appear that the Juvenile Department protected the negative right of the students by supporting “freedom from” interference by others. Likewise, a school health nurse in the project considered confidentiality or the Privacy Act an important factor in the security of the student “at-risk”: I was trying to think about this kid who’s one of the children who has been sexually abused, who’s a client of DCD, and I guess if police got involved there and wanted to know details and DCD didn’t want to give that information out then I’d guess I’d say to the police “Well no, you’ll have to talk to the parents about getting further information.” I guess that way, recognising these students are minor and that they are very vulnerable, their information … where it’s going, where is it leading? Who wants to know? Where will it be stored? What will be the outcomes in the future for this kid? As a 14 year old, if they’re reckless and get into things, you know, do they get a black record against them by the time they’re 19? What will that information be used for if it’s disclosed? So I guess I become an advocate for the student in that way? Thus the nurse considers a sexually abused child should not be identified. It is a positive right in the interest of the person. Once again, though, if the student turns out to be at “high risk” or suicidal, then it would appear that the nurse was protecting the youth’s negative right—“freedom from” interference by others. Since collaboration is a positive right and aims at the students’ welfare, the workable solution to prevent the students from suicide would be to develop inter-agency trust and to share vital information about “high-risk” students. Dilemmas of Collaboration Some recent cases of the deaths of young non-Caucasian girls in Western countries, either because of the implications of the Privacy Act or due to a lack of efficient and effective communication and coordination amongst agencies, have raised debates on effective child protection. For example, the British Laming report (2003) found that Victoria Climbié, a young African girl, was sent by her parents to her aunt in Britain in order to obtain a good education and was murdered by her aunt and aunt’s boyfriend. However, the risk that she could be harmed was widely known. The girl’s problems were known to 6 local authorities, 3 housing authorities, 4 social services, 2 child protection teams, and the police, the local church, and the hospital, but not to the education authorities. According to the Laming Report, her death could have been prevented if there had been inter-agency sharing of information and appropriate evaluation (Balnaves and Luca 49). The agencies had supported the negative rights of the young girl’s “freedom from” interference by others, but at the cost of her life. Perhaps Victoria’s racial background may have contributed to the concealment of information and added to her disadvantaged position. Similarly, in Western Australia, the Gordon Inquiry into the death of Susan Taylor, a 15 year old girl Aboriginal girl at the Swan Nyungah Community, found that in her short life this girl had encountered sexual violation, violence, and the ravages of alcohol and substance abuse. The Gordon Inquiry reported: Although up to thirteen different agencies were involved in providing services to Susan Taylor and her family, the D[epartment] of C[ommunity] D[evelopment] stated they were unaware of “all the services being provided by each agency” and there was a lack of clarity as to a “lead coordinating agency” (Gordon et al. quoted in Scott 45). In this case too, multiple factors—domestic, racial, and the Privacy Act—may have led to Susan Taylor’s tragic end. In the United Kingdom, Harry Ferguson noted that when a child is reported to be “at-risk” from domestic incidents, they can suffer further harm because of their family’s concealment (204). Ferguson’s study showed that in 11 per cent of the 319 case sample, children were known to be re-harmed within a year of initial referral. Sometimes, the parents apply a veil of secrecy around themselves and their children by resisting or avoiding services. In such cases the collaborative efforts of the agencies and education may be thwarted. Lack of cultural education among teachers, youth workers, and agencies could also put the “at-risk” cultural minorities into a high risk category. For example, an “at-risk” Muslim student may not be willing to share personal experiences with the school or agencies because of religious sensitivities. This happened in the UK when Khadji Rouf was abused by her father, a Bangladeshi. Rouf’s mother, a white woman, and her female cousin from Bangladesh, both supported Rouf when she finally disclosed that she had been sexually abused for over eight years. After group therapy, Rouf stated that she was able to accept her identity and to call herself proudly “mixed race”, whereas she rejected the Asian part of herself because it represented her father. Other Asian girls and young women in this study reported that they could not disclose their abuse to white teachers or social workers because of the feeling that they would be “letting down their race or their Muslim culture” (Rouf 113). The marginalisation of many Muslim Australians both in the job market and in society is long standing. For example, in 1996 and again in 2001 the Muslim unemployment rate was three times higher than the national total (Australian Bureau of Statistics). But since the 9/11 tragedy and Bali bombings visible Muslims, such as women wearing hijabs (headscarves), have sometimes been verbally and physically abused and called ‘terrorists’ by some members of the wider community (Dreher 13). The Howard government’s new anti-terrorism legislation and the surveillance hotline ‘Be alert not alarmed’ has further marginalised some Muslims. Some politicians have also linked Muslim asylum seekers with terrorists (Kabir 303), which inevitably has led Muslim “at-risk” refugee students to withdraw from school support such as counselling. Under these circumstances, Muslim “at-risk” students and their parents may prefer to maintain a low profile rather than engage with agencies. In this case, arguably, federal government politics have exacerbated the barriers to collaboration. It appears that unfamiliarity with Muslim culture is not confined to mainstream Australians. For example, an Aboriginal liaison police officer engaged in the Smart Communities project in Western Australia had this to say about Muslim youths “at-risk”: Different laws and stuff from different countries and they’re coming in and sort of thinking that they can bring their own laws and religions and stuff … and when I say religions there’s laws within their religions as well that they don’t seem to understand that with Australia and our laws. Such generalised misperceptions of Muslim youths “at-risk” would further alienate them, thus causing a major hindrance to collaboration. The “at-risk” factors associated with Aboriginal youths have historical connections. Research findings have revealed that indigenous youths aged between 10-16 years constitute a vast majority in all Australian States’ juvenile detention centres. This over-representation is widely recognised as associated with the nature of European colonisation, and is inter-related with poverty, marginalisation and racial discrimination (Watson et al. 404). Like the Muslims, their unemployment rate was three times higher than the national total in 2001 (ABS). However, in 1998 it was estimated that suicide rates among Indigenous peoples were at least 40 per cent higher than national average (National Advisory Council for Youth Suicide Prevention, quoted in Elliot-Farrelly 2). Although the wider community’s unemployment rate is much lower than the Aboriginals and the Muslims, the “at-risk” factors of mainstream Australian youths are often associated with dysfunctional families, high conflict, low-cohesive families, high levels of harsh parental discipline, high levels of victimisation by peers, and high behavioural inhibition (Watson et al. 404). The Macquarie Fields riots in 2005 revealed the existence of “White” underclass and “at-risk” people in Sydney. Macquarie Fields’ unemployment rate was more than twice the national average. Children growing up in this suburb are at greater risk of being involved in crime (The Age). Thus small pockets of mainstream underclass youngsters also require collaborative attention. In Western Australia people working on the Smart Communities project identified that lack of resources can be a hindrance to collaboration for all sectors. As one social worker commented: “government agencies are hierarchical systems and lack resources”. They went on to say that in their department they can not give “at-risk” youngsters financial assistance in times of crisis: We had a petty cash box which has got about 40 bucks in it and sometimes in an emergency we might give a customer a couple of dollars but that’s all we can do, we can’t give them any larger amount. We have bus/metro rail passes, that’s the only thing that we’ve actually got. A youth worker in Smart Communities commented that a lot of uncertainty is involved with young people “at-risk”. They said that there are only a few paid workers in their field who are supported and assisted by “a pool of volunteers”. Because the latter give their time voluntarily they are under no obligation to be constant in their attendance, so the number of available helpers can easily fluctuate. Another youth worker identified a particularly important barrier to collaboration: because of workers’ relatively low remuneration and high levels of work stress, the turnover rates are high. The consequence of this is as follows: The other barrier from my point is that you’re talking to somebody about a student “at-risk”, and within 14 months or 18 months a new person comes in [to that position] then you’ve got to start again. This way you miss a lot of information [which could be beneficial for the youth]. Conclusion The Privacy Act creates a dilemma in that it can be either beneficial or counter-productive for a student’s security. To be blunt, a youth who has suicided might have had their privacy protected, but not their life. Lack of funding can also be a constraint on collaboration by undermining stability and autonomy in the workforce, and blocking inter-agency initiatives. Lack of awareness about cultural differences can also affect unity of action. The deepening inequality between the “haves” and “have-nots” in the Australian society, and the Howard government’s harshness on national security issues, can also pose barriers to collaboration on youth issues. Despite these exigencies and dilemmas, it would seem that collaboration is “the only game” when it comes to helping students “at-risk”. To enhance this collaboration, there needs to be a sensible modification of legal restrictions to information sharing, an increase in government funding and support for inter-agency cooperation and informal information sharing, and an increased awareness about the cultural needs of minority groups and knowledge of the mainstream underclass. Acknowledgments The research is part of a major Australian Research Council (ARC) funded project, Smart Communities. The authors very gratefully acknowledge the contribution of the interviewees, and thank *Donald E. Scott for conducting the interviews. References Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1996 and 2001. Balnaves, Mark, and Joe Luca. “The Impact of Digital Persona on the Future of Learning: A Case Study on Digital Repositories and the Sharing of Information about Children At-Risk in Western Australia”, paper presented at Ascilite, Brisbane (2005): 49-56. 10 April 2006. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/brisbane05/blogs/proceedings/ 06_Balnaves.pdf>. Dreher, Tanya. ‘Targeted’: Experiences of Racism in NSW after September 11, 2001. Sydney: University of Technology, 2005. Elliot-Farrelly, Terri. “Australian Aboriginal Suicide: The Need for an Aboriginal Suicidology”? Australian e-Journal for the Advancement of Mental Health, 3.3 (2004): 1-8. 15 April 2006 http://www.auseinet.com/journal/vol3iss3/elliottfarrelly.pdf>. Farmer, James. A. High-Risk Teenagers: Real Cases and Interception Strategies with Resistant Adolescents. Springfield, Ill.: C.C. Thomas, 1990. Ferguson, Harry. Protecting Children in Time: Child Abuse, Child Protection and the Consequences of Modernity. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. Foucault, Michel. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977. Ed. Colin Gordon, trans. Colin Gordon et al. New York: Pantheon, 1980. Kabir, Nahid. Muslims in Australia: Immigration, Race Relations and Cultural History. London: Kegan Paul, 2005. Rouf, Khadji. “Myself in Echoes. My Voice in Song.” Ed. A. Bannister, et al. Listening to Children. London: Longman, 1990. Scott E. Donald. “Exploring Communication Patterns within and across a School and Associated Agencies to Increase the Effectiveness of Service to At-Risk Individuals.” MS Thesis, Curtin University of Technology, August 2005. The Age. “Investing in People Means Investing in the Future.” The Age 5 March, 2005. 15 April 2006 http://www.theage.com.au>. Watson, Malcolm, et al. “Pathways to Aggression in Children and Adolescents.” Harvard Educational Review, 74.4 (Winter 2004): 404-428. Citation reference for this article MLA Style Kabir, Nahid, and Mark Balnaves. "Students “at Risk”: Dilemmas of Collaboration." M/C Journal 9.2 (2006). echo date('d M. Y'); ?> <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0605/04-kabirbalnaves.php>. APA Style Kabir, N., and M. Balnaves. (May 2006) "Students “at Risk”: Dilemmas of Collaboration," M/C Journal, 9(2). Retrieved echo date('d M. Y'); ?> from <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0605/04-kabirbalnaves.php>.

• US: A long struggle by a small group of politicians and journalists over a decade led to numerous abortive attempts to pass legislation in the 1960s. The bill finally became the 1966 FOI Act following a long process of negotiation in the Senate and opposition, though crucially not rejection, from the then President Lyndon Johnson (Reylea 1983: Yu and Davies 2012). • Australia: the Australian FOI policy development, beginning in the 1970s and ending in 1982, was a long series of advances and retreats. The proposed legislation was alternatively weakened during its passage, with crusaders both in government and in the Senate seeking to preserve key features against bureaucratic and political opposition (Snell 2001: Terrill 1998). • India: the traditional view of Indian Right to Information Act is of a remarkable grassroots alliance of dedicated reformers pushed openness legislation from the local level upwards during the 1990s and 2000s (Roberts 2006: Sharma 2013). However the reality is more complex as RTI was the result of a combination of piecemeal reforms in the 1980s, shifts in elite power and support from parts of the bureaucracy and from Sonia Ghandi herself (Singh 2007: Sharma 2013).

It was acknowledged in the 1997 White Paper Your Right To Know that the United Kingdom could learn much from the experience of other countries with established FOI regimes. The draftsman of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 had regard to the statutory schemes of five such countries whose jurisprudence has precedent value in our courts: Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United States. Chapter 25 looks at their different approaches to the fundamental elements of any FOI regime, and gives examples of how their courts have interpreted and applied the respective statutes. The chapter notes common themes and recurrent sources of controversy, notably delays in responding to requests, charges for access, and the position of affected third parties. It traces how the legislation in each country has been adapted over the years, and where there is pressure for yet further reforms.