1.	Does your agency have concerns about releasing the names and contact details of staff in response to FOI requests? If so, what are your concerns? Has your agency experienced any specific work health and safety issues as a result of a person’s name or contact details being released in response to an FOI request?
Yes – our agency (NOPSEMA) does have concerns in regards to releasing the names and contact details of staff members. NOPSEMA is concerned that a blanket position that ‘it is not unreasonable to publish information about a public servant undertaking a public duty’ does not consider protection of staff involved in high profile decisions, particularly where there is a lot of public and media attention and it is now far easier to interact via social media.  NOPSEMA has several examples where employees whose names have been released under FOI/otherwise published on NOPSEMA’s website have received personal threats, harassment and inappropriate comments which have not only affected their health and well-being, but also their ability to efficiently and effectively undertake their role as an independent decision maker. Such unsolicited comments have occurred via telephone, email (most notably an organisation-led email campaign) and social media including LinkedIn and Facebook. 

2.	Have your agency’s views on this issue changed over time? If so, please describe any factors that have affected your agency’s approach, including technological, environmental or legal factors.
Yes NOPSEMA’s views have changed over time.  Since the introduction of the disclosure log in 2010, there has always been a level of uneasiness in NOPSEMA about publishing staff names on documents.  However, the organisation was advised of the current case law and guidance indicating a position that generally it would not be unreasonable to disclose the names and contact details of public servants who are performing their public duties.  However, approximately 2 years ago, NOPSEMA began receiving significant media attention over an online environmental activism campaign, launched by environmental groups via social media aimed at NOPSEMA’s environmental decisions. During this period, NOPSEMA received FOI requests for material related to its decision to approve an environment plan for a high profile offshore exploration drilling project. Various NOPSEMA staff were involved in the decision making process but following publication of documentation released under FOI on NOPSEMA’s disclosure log, certain staff members were personally and negatively targeted via email and social media and even threatened over their involvement in assessing the proposal. Prior to this, whilst many staff did consider that releasing their names and contact details added to their personal stress, we did not have any specific examples of NOPSEMA personnel being directly pursued and negatively impacted.  More detailed guidance from the OAIC at this time to guide us on making deletions in such circumstances would have been useful.

3.	Does your agency advise staff, including contractors undertaking functions on behalf of the agency, that names and contact details may be released in response to an FOI request as part of your agency’s training and induction programs?
NOPSEMA provides in-house training to all new staff regarding the agency’s general compliance and obligations under the FOI Act. This training is also offered to existing staff on a voluntary basis. The training program  includes discussion of some of the current legal case law regarding the issue of disclosing employees’ names and contact details.

4.	How do you balance work health and safety considerations with the objects of the FOI Act, which include increasing public participation in Government processes with a view to promoting better-informed decision making and increasing scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of the Government’s activities?
NOPSEMA regularly looks for opportunities to improve transparency of its operations and processes with the public.  Recently, NOPSEMA has supported significant amendments requiring all environment plans to be published upon submission to NOPSEMA. 
Accordingly, a great deal more information is now being published by NOPSEMA about offshore activities currently occurring, or being planned in Commonwealth waters. 
The new regime also increases scrutiny in Government decision making through providing the public with an opportunity to comment on all planned activities, through the ‘Community Information’ portal (https://www.nopsema.gov.au/community-information/). Members of the public can find activities that are open for comment, links for how they can get involved and finally, links to further information (including a link for the Freedom of Information page). In NOPSEMA’s view, this additional information provides the public with significantly more information about environmental matters and NOPSEMA’s decisions, enabling them to participate actively in the process.  By contrast, releasing names of individuals/public servants does far less to shed light on the workings of NOPSEMA whilst preserving the health and safety concerns relating to staff members.

5.	If your agency considers that disclosure of a public servant’s name or contact details will negatively impact their health or safety, what evidence do you require before deciding that their name or contact details are exempt from disclosure?
NOPSEMA consults with staff members whose names appear on documents the subject of FOI requests. NOPSEMA requests that these staff members provide reasons why names, contact details and any other pertinent personal information about them should not be released.  This includes any impacts on their health and safety – such as potential threats – and NOPSEMA takes these reasons into account when making a decision to disclose such information. 

6.	Do you consider the FOI Guidelines provide enough guidance for agencies when considering these issues?
In NOPSEMA’s view, the FOI guidelines seem to advocate for a “blanket” position that it is generally not unreasonable to release the names of public servants performing a public duty.  This does not take into account recent advancements in technology and the increasing trend in recent years of online bullying and harassment. The identity of NOPSEMA staff is not, in NOPSEMA’s view, generally a matter of public interest with respect to NOPSEMA’s operations and decision making. . However, NOPSEMA takes a slightly different view with respect to the identities of members of its leadership team.  As these members of staff hold responsible positions of power and influence in the agency, it is considered a matter of good governance that the public is aware of the leaders of the organisation (see organisational chart).  The leadership teams direct contact details are not provided publically to avoid unsolicited contact, but generic email addresses are provided to enable members of the public to contact the relevant team within the agency.

7.	In what circumstances do you consider that a public servant’s personal information (name and contact details) are irrelevant to the FOI request?
Where the request is in regards to purely factual material, with the personal information having no bearing on the information contained in the request.  In such circumstances, NOPSEMA usually seeks to negotiate the scope of a request with an FOI applicant to exclude such information (both public servants and other external individuals) by agreement.

8.	Where you have withheld the names and contact details of public servants, what impact does deleting this information from documents have on the time it takes to process FOI requests?
Given most documents held by NOPSEMA contain both public servant and external individual personal information, there is very little time impact on making deletions to the document(s) with respect to public servant personal information.