Need to hide an embarrassing document? Want to avoid scrutiny? In the past, public servants could look to their hero, Sir Humphrey Appleby of Yes Minister fame, for tips and tricks. These days, the ways of avoiding inconvenient freedom of information (FOI) requests are multifarious.

One particularly useful event is a ministerial reshuffle, which can have the effect of wiping out every FOI application for “official documents of the Minister” held by his or her office. It works like this.

Nigel Hawthorne as Nigel Hawthorne as Sir Humphrey Appleby in Yes Minister.Credit:

The minister keeps politically sensitive or controversial documents in his or her ministerial office and off public service files. Then, when there is a reshuffle, the minister takes some of the documents with him or her, and the rest get shredded.

When an applicant seeks access to such a document under FOI, hey presto, it is no longer in the office and the request is denied. This effect may be unintentional, as there has long been a practice of not passing on ministerial documents to one’s successor, but it still undermines FOI scrutiny.

The same result can occur if the document has been requested under FOI while the minister still holds the office. The minister may refuse access to the document, relying on one of the many exemption grounds. By the time any review is completed by the Australian Information Commissioner, the minister may no longer hold the office and the document may have disappeared, either to a box in the minister’s garage or through a shredder.

The commissioner then tells the unhappy applicant that as there is no longer an “official document of the minister” held in the ministerial office and their FOI application is terminated.

Former independent senator Rex Patrick wanted to see a copy of the advice that the then attorney-general, Christian Porter, gave prime minister Scott Morrison, about the sports rorts affair. The document could not be found.Credit: Rohan Thomson

It was this loss of ministerial documents that faced former senator Rex Patrick when he sought a copy of the advice that the then attorney-general, Christian Porter, gave prime minister Scott Morrison, about the sports-rorts affair.

We know the advice exists because both Porter and Morrison referred to it in press conferences. It concluded that the auditor-general, who had issued a scathing report about the management of the sports funding program, was “not correct” in his interpretation of the law. Yet no one was prepared to explain what was “not correct” or give the reasoning behind it.