A confidential report on the state of one of Leura’s oldest buildings has been deemed too sensitive for public eyes.
Create a free account to read this article
or signup to continue reading
The Gazette sought access to the report under freedom of information laws. The initial request was denied so the paper appealed. Last week, council released a copy but redacted at least three-quarters of it.
Council has cited a range of reasons for the heavy censoring, including that revealing all might “undermine the competitive neutrality” of council, might “diminish the competitive commercial value of any information to any person” or even that it might “prejudice any court proceedings by revealing matter”.
The Gazette is unaware of any court proceedings over the building.
Council has owned the Wayzgoose building at 170-174 Leura Mall for more than 50 years.
The owner of the Wayzgoose cafe, Mark Alchin, said for years he had asked the council to make repairs but nothing was done.
The building now, as one uncensored section of the report says, ”has reached the end of its useful life and requires major rectification or replacement”.
At a meeting last December, council voted to redevelop the 110-year-old building, which housed the first local newspaper published in the Mountains.
But the report upon which that decision was based remains secret.
Unedited recommendations refer to “option 4” but details about that option – or any others - have been redacted.
Also blacked out are any positive and/or negative environmental, social and economic effects.
Likewise, the “legal and risk management issues for council” has been entirely blacked out as well as the report’s conclusion.
The officer who made the decision wrote that factors in favour of disclosure were that it would “inform the public of council’s operations and practices” and that it “could reasonably be expected to reveal the reason for a government decision and any background or contextual information that informed the decision”.
However, she decided these were outweighed by the cited factors against disclosure, which also included that it could reveal an opinion or advice which would “prejudice a deliberative process of council”
The Gazette argued that, having decided last December to demolish, council had finished any “deliberative process”.
But the officer countered: “Although there was a resolution by council of the basis of this business paper, I have also considered that the core decision-making on the future of the site is ongoing.”
The full reasons against disclosure, selected from a table provided under the Government Information (Public Access) Act, are:
Reveal a deliberation or consultation conducted, or an opinion, advice or recommendation given, in such a way as to prejudice a deliberative process of council;
Found an action against an agency for breach of confidence or otherwise result in the disclosure of information provided to an agency in confidence;
Prejudice any court proceedings by revealing matter prepared for the purposes of or in relation to current or future proceedings;
Undermine the competitive neutrality in connected with any functions or an agency in respect of which it competes with any person or otherwise place an agency at a competitive advantage or disadvantage in any market;
Diminish the competitive commercial value of any information to any person;
Prejudice any person’s legitimate business, commercial, professional or financial interests; and/or
Expose any person to an unfair advantage or disadvantage as a result of the premature disclosure of information concerning any proposed action or inaction of council.