The United Services Union says it may mount a legal challenge in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal to force Liverpool Council to release information relating to the outsourcing of customer service management to a company part owned by Indian multinational call centre operator Essar.
The union, which represents staff at the council and has been running a protracted protest campaign against Mayor Ned Mannoun and CEO Carl Wulff, applied for documentation related to negotiations with Propel Partnerships, which conducted an external service review and then submitted a successful tender for the work, under the Government Information (Public Access) Act.
The union then complained to the Information and Privacy Commission after Liverpool Council refused to release the majority of the documentation, claiming it wasn’t in the public interest.
A review by the IPC recommended that the decision to block key documents be reconsidered, and urged an internal review of how the determination was reached.
The IPC also found the council had failed to “demonstrate how the public interest test was applied in the way required by the GIPA Act” and questioned the imposition of a $2,985 “processing charge”.
USU general secretary Graeme Kelly said the union wrote to council following the IPC recommendations, urging the immediate disclosure of documents relating outsourcing arrangement.
“If Liverpool Council fails to respond to these recommendations, we will have no choice but to consider launching a legal challenge in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal to force the handover of this information.
[social_quote duplicate=”no” align=”default”]“Legal action is always a last resort, but if Liverpool Council disregards the umpire’s ruling and continues to flout the law in relation to information disclosure, the union will have no other choice,” he said.[/social_quote]
“Liverpool City Council’s refusal to disclose details of this multi million dollar outsourcing arrangement has been rejected after an extensive examination by the independent umpire,” Mr Kelly said.
“Staff, residents and ratepayers have a right to see the details of how a private company was able to carry out a review that recommended outsourcing of front-line council services, and was then awarded a contract to take over that work.
“The IPC shared the union’s view that council had not provided sufficient reasons why the release of these documents wasn’t in the public interest.
“The public have a right to know, and these continued attempts to withhold information run counter to the fundamental purpose of the GIPA Act,’’ Mr Kelly said.
Acting Liverpool Council CEO Gary Grantham said in response:
“Council is in receipt of the recommendations of the Information Privacy Commissioner (IPC).
“Council has nothing to hide and has proposed that an independent review of the documents withheld as part of the original decision be undertaken.
“The applicant has agreed to this course of action.
“If the independent reviewer determines that further documents should be released to the applicant, Council will accept the decision,’’ Mr Grantham said.
“The charge of $2,985 was derived from council incurring 99.5 hours at $30 per hour as per section 64 of the GIPA act to collate and review 5,000 pages of material to the applicant. Note only 160 documents were subject to restricted access determinations as advised by Council’s legal internal advisors.
“Many of these restricted documents were also provided to the applicant, with sensitive portions redacted for privacy or confidentiality reasons. “Council denies that its freedom of information processes are flawed and notes that of the over 800 access applications made to Council during the 2014/15 financial year, only two (2) were refused.”
