Group Certificates/PAYG payment summaries of the MDB’s SES staff - FY2013/14, FY2014/15 and FY2015/16
Dear Murray-Darling Basin Authority,
The following is an application for the purposes of the FOI Act.
I am conducting research, across a range of Government agencies, into the Government's enterprise bargaining framework for the Commonwealth Public Service. Specifically, in the interests of equity and transparency, whether the Government's policy to reduce the living standards of rank and file public servants (that is, public servants who are not considered senior executive service staff ('SES')) also extends to SES public servants.
Accordingly, I request documents which detail the precise monies paid to each of the Murray Darling Basin Authority's (MDB's) SES officers in the following financial years - FY2013/14, FY 2014/15 and FY2015/16. The group certificates/end-of-year PAYG payments summaries issued by the MDB to each of its SES staff in those years can be quickly and easily identified and retrieved, and will efficiently and accurately provide the information the subject of my request.
I am willing to agree to the decision maker redacting information relating to the tax file numbers, the home addresses and information relating to the amount of tax withheld for each of the relevant SES officers that may be contained in the relevant documents. I am willing to further narrow the scope of my request by limiting it to officers employed by the MDB who, at the time of my application, were categorised as SES officers, meaning that:
- MDB staff who were once SES officers at the MDB, but weren’t categorised as such at the time of this application; and
- the documents the subject of my request that pertain to SES officers who are no longer employed by the MDB;
are discounted from the scope of my application.
I make the following submissions in support of my application.
The precise remuneration paid to public servants for performing public duties is a matter of wide and countervailing public interest. That is established by authority including that set out in Re Ricketson and Royal Women’s Hospital (1989) 4 VAR 10; Re Forbes and Department of Premier & Cabinet (1993) 6 VAR 53; Re Stewart and Department of Transport (1993) 1 QAR 227; Re Thwaites and Metropolitan Ambulance Service (unreported, 13 June 1997); Re Milthorpe and Mt. Alexander Shire Council (1997) 12 VAR 105; Re National Tertiary Education Industry Union (Murdoch Branch) and Murdoch University; Ors [2001] WAICmr 1 and Asher and Department of State and Regional Development [2002] VCAT 609.
In Re Forbes, Deputy President Ball said (at page 60):
"Mr Baxter is a senior public servant performing very significant public functions and being paid wholly from money provided by the public. The public is entitled to know precisely how much of its money is received in salary and entitlements by senior public servants for performing functions on behalf of the public."
In Re Stewart, at pp.257-258, the Information Commissioner observed:
"It has been held […] that there is a general public interest in seeing how the taxpayers' money is spent which is sufficient to justify the disclosure of the gross income payable from the public purse to the holder of a public office. […] see [Re Ricketson and Royal Women's Hospital (1989) 4 VAR 10, and Re Forbes and Department of the Premier and Cabinet (1993) 6 VAR 53]."
In Re National Tertiary Education Industry Union, the Commissioner observed (at [68]):
"I recognise that there is a public interest in the public receiving value for its money spent on public education, especially in the present climate of financial restrictions. I agree with the Tribunal in Re Ricketson and Re Forbes that the public is entitled to know how much of its money is received in salary and entitlements by senior public officers for performing functions on behalf of the public and that such information is the subject of legitimate public interest and discussion."
In Asher, Deputy President McNamara stated:
"The total remuneration paid to senior public officers has been, and continues to be, a matter of public concern and public debate. The authorities referred to above indicate the fact that the taxpayers ultimately meet the remuneration gives them a legitimate interest in this matter, even although it is one that it is clearly a matter relative to the personal affairs to the officers themselves. As Mr Edwards notes, his actions as Secretary must ultimately be regulated by the law which must take precedence over any government policy, or one might say any private assurance that he might give to a particular officer. The existence of authorities such as Forbes and Milthorpe indicates that conformably with the Freedom of Information Act no officer, certainly no senior officer, could legally obtain an absolute guarantee of confidentiality of his or her total remuneration package figure without some special enabling legislation."
An additional wide public interest aspect that relates to my application is that employment relations (including the regulation of pay and conditions) in the public sector are widely considered to serve as a role model for industrial relations in the private sector (see, for example, Creighton B and Forsyth R [Eds.] Rediscovering Collective Bargaining, 2012 at pp.184-185). That is, the way in which a government treats its staff (public servants) can be considered emblematic of the way in which a government considers employees across the broader workforce should be treated by their employers. The current Commonwealth Government has an employment relations policy in place (known as the ‘Australian Public Service Bargaining Framework’) which necessarily involves reducing the living standards of rank and file (non-SES) public servants. Senior management at the MDB has decided, at its discretion, to adopt and enforce, against its rank and file staff, the Government’s employment relations policy. Part of the purpose of my application is to determine whether the Government’s policy to reduce the living standards of rank and file public servants also extends to SES public servants. The documents the subject of my request will shed some light on that issue. It is immutably in the public interest of APS rank and file employees and their families, but also Australian taxpayers and working Australians more generally, to know whether it is the current Government’s view that rank and file employees who are not categorised as senior executives (or equivalent) are generally overpaid, and should therefore have their living standards reduced by their employers, while senior executives (or their equivalents) are generally underpaid and should have their living standards increased. Such an insight will augment the public’s knowledge of the Government’s existing policies concerning the distribution of wealth among Australian society including the Government’s policy to reduce the level of penalty rates paid to some of the lowest paid members of the Australian workforce while simultaneously reducing company taxation rates.
Thank you.
[name not required to be provided under the FOI Act]
Good morning,
The Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) acknowledges your request for
access under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) to documents as
outlined in your email below.
The MDBA received your request on 16 June 2017 and the 30 day statutory
period for processing it commenced from the day after that date. The
period of 30 days may be extended if we need to consult with any third
parties related to the documents or for other reasons and we will let you
know as soon as possible should this be necessary.
FOI Coordinator
Legal and Parliamentary Services, Corporate
Murray–Darling Basin Authority
GPO Box 1801 Canberra ACT 2601
p: (02) 6279 0100
e:.[Murray-Darling Basin Authority request email]
w: [1]www.mdba.gov.au
Follow the MDBA:
[2][IMG] [3][IMG] [4][IMG]
In the spirit of strengthening partnerships with Aboriginal people the
MDBA acknowledges the cultural authority of the Traditional Owners in the
Murray–Darling Basin
-----Original Message-----
From: Name withheld
[[5]mailto:[FOI #3639 email]]
Sent: Friday, 16 June 2017 8:02 AM
To: FOI <[email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Group Certificates/PAYG payment
summaries of the MDB’s SES staff - FY2013/14, FY2014/15 and FY2015/16
Dear Murray-Darling Basin Authority,
The following is an application for the purposes of the FOI Act.
I am conducting research, across a range of Government agencies, into the
Government's enterprise bargaining framework for the Commonwealth Public
Service. Specifically, in the interests of equity and transparency,
whether the Government's policy to reduce the living standards of rank and
file public servants (that is, public servants who are not considered
senior executive service staff ('SES')) also extends to SES public
servants.
Accordingly, I request documents which detail the precise monies paid to
each of the Murray Darling Basin Authority's (MDB's) SES officers in the
following financial years - FY2013/14, FY 2014/15 and FY2015/16. The group
certificates/end-of-year PAYG payments summaries issued by the MDB to each
of its SES staff in those years can be quickly and easily identified and
retrieved, and will efficiently and accurately provide the information the
subject of my request.
I am willing to agree to the decision maker redacting information relating
to the tax file numbers, the home addresses and information relating to
the amount of tax withheld for each of the relevant SES officers that may
be contained in the relevant documents. I am willing to further narrow the
scope of my request by limiting it to officers employed by the MDB who, at
the time of my application, were categorised as SES officers, meaning
that:
- MDB staff who were once SES officers at the MDB, but weren’t categorised
as such at the time of this application; and
- the documents the subject of my request that pertain to SES officers who
are no longer employed by the MDB; are discounted from the scope of my
application.
I make the following submissions in support of my application.
The precise remuneration paid to public servants for performing public
duties is a matter of wide and countervailing public interest. That is
established by authority including that set out in Re Ricketson and Royal
Women’s Hospital (1989) 4 VAR 10; Re Forbes and Department of Premier &
Cabinet (1993) 6 VAR 53; Re Stewart and Department of Transport (1993) 1
QAR 227; Re Thwaites and Metropolitan Ambulance Service (unreported, 13
June 1997); Re Milthorpe and Mt. Alexander Shire Council (1997) 12 VAR
105; Re National Tertiary Education Industry Union (Murdoch Branch) and
Murdoch University; Ors [2001] WAICmr 1 and Asher and Department of State
and Regional Development [2002] VCAT 609.
In Re Forbes, Deputy President Ball said (at page 60):
"Mr Baxter is a senior public servant performing very significant public
functions and being paid wholly from money provided by the public. The
public is entitled to know precisely how much of its money is received in
salary and entitlements by senior public servants for performing functions
on behalf of the public."
In Re Stewart, at pp.257-258, the Information Commissioner observed:
"It has been held […] that there is a general public interest in seeing
how the taxpayers' money is spent which is sufficient to justify the
disclosure of the gross income payable from the public purse to the holder
of a public office. […] see [Re Ricketson and Royal Women's Hospital
(1989) 4 VAR 10, and Re Forbes and Department of the Premier and Cabinet
(1993) 6 VAR 53]."
In Re National Tertiary Education Industry Union, the Commissioner
observed (at [68]):
"I recognise that there is a public interest in the public receiving value
for its money spent on public education, especially in the present climate
of financial restrictions. I agree with the Tribunal in Re Ricketson and
Re Forbes that the public is entitled to know how much of its money is
received in salary and entitlements by senior public officers for
performing functions on behalf of the public and that such information is
the subject of legitimate public interest and discussion."
In Asher, Deputy President McNamara stated:
"The total remuneration paid to senior public officers has been, and
continues to be, a matter of public concern and public debate. The
authorities referred to above indicate the fact that the taxpayers
ultimately meet the remuneration gives them a legitimate interest in this
matter, even although it is one that it is clearly a matter relative to
the personal affairs to the officers themselves. As Mr Edwards notes, his
actions as Secretary must ultimately be regulated by the law which must
take precedence over any government policy, or one might say any private
assurance that he might give to a particular officer. The existence of
authorities such as Forbes and Milthorpe indicates that conformably with
the Freedom of Information Act no officer, certainly no senior officer,
could legally obtain an absolute guarantee of confidentiality of his or
her total remuneration package figure without some special enabling
legislation."
An additional wide public interest aspect that relates to my application
is that employment relations (including the regulation of pay and
conditions) in the public sector are widely considered to serve as a role
model for industrial relations in the private sector (see, for example,
Creighton B and Forsyth R [Eds.] Rediscovering Collective Bargaining, 2012
at pp.184-185). That is, the way in which a government treats its staff
(public servants) can be considered emblematic of the way in which a
government considers employees across the broader workforce should be
treated by their employers. The current Commonwealth Government has an
employment relations policy in place (known as the ‘Australian Public
Service Bargaining Framework’) which necessarily involves reducing the
living standards of rank and file (non-SES) public servants. Senior
management at the MDB has decided, at its discretion, to adopt and
enforce, against its rank and file staff, the Government’s employment
relations policy. Part of the purpose of my application is to determine
whether the Government’s policy to reduce the living standards of rank and
file public servants also extends to SES public servants. The documents
the subject of my request will shed some light on that issue. It is
immutably in the public interest of APS rank and file employees and their
families, but also Australian taxpayers and working Australians more
generally, to know whether it is the current Government’s view that rank
and file employees who are not categorised as senior executives (or
equivalent) are generally overpaid, and should therefore have their living
standards reduced by their employers, while senior executives (or their
equivalents) are generally underpaid and should have their living
standards increased. Such an insight will augment the public’s knowledge
of the Government’s existing policies concerning the distribution of
wealth among Australian society including the Government’s policy to
reduce the level of penalty rates paid to some of the lowest paid members
of the Australian workforce while simultaneously reducing company taxation
rates.
Thank you.
[name not required to be provided under the FOI Act]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[6][FOI #3639 email]
Is [7][Murray-Darling Basin Authority request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information
requests to Murray-Darling Basin Authority? If so, please contact us using
this form:
[8]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/change_re...
This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This
message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet.
More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
[9]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: This message, and any attachments, is intended for the addressee(s) named and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient please immediately delete this email, and any attachments, and notify the sender. This email is subject to copyright and no part of it may be used without the express written permission of the copyright holder(s). The views expressed in this message may be those of the individual sender and are not necessarily the views of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority ("the MDBA"). To the extent permitted by law the MDBA does not represent or guarantee that the email and any attachments are free of errors, viruses or defects. The MDBA accepts no liability for loss or damage arising from the use of this email or any attachments.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.mdba.gov.au/
2. http://twitter.com/MD_Basin_Auth
3. http://www.facebook.com/MDBAuth
4. https://www.youtube.com/user/mdbamedia
5. mailto:[FOI #3639 email]
6. mailto:[FOI #3639 email]
7. mailto:[Murray-Darling Basin Authority request email]
8. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/change_re...
9. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
Good afternoon,
Please find attached the decision letter in relation to your Freedom of
Information Request dated 16 June 2017 in relation to SES remuneration.
Kind regards,
FOI Officer
Legal and Parliamentary Services
Corporate
[1]http://www.mdba.gov.au/files/internal/si...
Murray–Darling Basin Authority
GPO Box 1801 Canberra ACT 2601
p: (02) 6279 0100
w: [2]www.mdba.gov.au
Follow the MDBA:
[3]cid:image002.png@01D2E04B.504083A0[4]cid:image003.png@01D2E04B.504083A0[5]cid:image004.png@01D2E04B.504083A0[6]cid:image003.png@01D2E04B.504083A0[7]cid:image005.png@01D2E04B.504083A0
In the spirit of strengthening partnerships with Aboriginal people the
MDBA acknowledges the cultural authority of the Traditional Owners in the
Murray–Darling Basin
DISCLAIMER: This message, and any attachments, is intended for the addressee(s) named and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient please immediately delete this email, and any attachments, and notify the sender. This email is subject to copyright and no part of it may be used without the express written permission of the copyright holder(s). The views expressed in this message may be those of the individual sender and are not necessarily the views of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority ("the MDBA"). To the extent permitted by law the MDBA does not represent or guarantee that the email and any attachments are free of errors, viruses or defects. The MDBA accepts no liability for loss or damage arising from the use of this email or any attachments.
References
Visible links
2. http://www.mdba.gov.au/
3. http://twitter.com/MD_Basin_Auth
5. http://www.facebook.com/MDBAuth
7. https://www.youtube.com/user/mdbamedia