Mr Brenton Holmes
Secretary
Senate Select Committee on a Certain Maritime Incident
Suite S1.57
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600

[stamped, 'Received 14 August 2002']

Dear Mr Holmes,

I refer to your letters to Mr Jeff Whalan of 9 and 18 April 2002 requesting copies of e-mail traffic to and from specific PM&C officers which is relevant to the Committee's terms of reference, for selected periods in 2001 and 2002.

Please find attached copies of the relevant e-mails (Attachment B) and a schedule detailing the deletions made and the attachments withheld, and the basis on which these deletions have been made (Attachment A). The following grounds for non-disclosure of material have been identified in the schedule:

• The following grounds for non-disclosure of material have been identified in the schedule:

• where disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause damage to national security, defence or international relations (DIR);

• material disclosing the existence or identity of a confidential source of information or that discloses confidential methods of operation of law enforcement agencies (C);

• where disclosure may prejudice the enforcement of the law (EL);

• documents are early working drafts and the most final version is provided or is already a public document (WD);

• comment, options and recommendations in or concerning working drafts where disclosure would be contrary to the public interest (WPI);

• material disclosing opinion, advice or recommendations provided to Ministers (including the Prime Minister) or disclosing Government deliberations, where disclosure would be contrary to the public interest (GD);

• where legal professional privilege applies (LPP); and

• where disclosure would reveal personal or private information that is not relevant to the Committee's terms of reference (P).

Please note that e-mails previously provided to the Committee as part of the evidence available to Ms Bryant in conducting her inquiry are not included in the attached package. E-mails which relate to the natural justice processes for Ms Bryant's inquiry (for example, where individuals were sent the drafts of findings which related to them) have also not been provided. We consider that Ms Bryant's report reflects the final views she formed on the basis of all the evidence available to her and that providing these e-mails would contradict the principles of natural justice and could be misleading.

While PM&C has been more than willing to provide the requested e-mails to the Committee, it is important to recognise that this was a significant undertaking, involving the examination of over 35,000 e- mails. The department has made every effort to ensure that all relevant e-mails have been identified and have been provided to the Committee.

As a courtesy, individuals (both senders and recipients of e-mails) have been provided with a copy of the e-mails that are relevant to them. The e-mails have been provided to individuals in the same form in which they are being made available to the Committee.

Please note that I am now the contact for any further issues the Committee may wish to raise with this department. I can be contacted on 6271 5202.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Metcalfe
Executive Coordinator
Government and Corporate Group
14 August 2002