A number of sections of the Act make direct reference to the management of records by agencies and State Records’ responsibilities in this area. In order to help set the scene for the following discussion the relevant sections of the Act are set out below:
5. (1) The objects of this Act are -
c) to promote the observance of best practices by agencies in their management of official records;
5. (2) This Act must be administered and standards must be formulated and determinations and decisions made under this Act so as to give effect to the objects set out in subsection (1).
7. State Records has the following functions:
(g) to provide advice and assistance to agencies with respect to their records management practices;
(h) to issue standards (following consultation with the Council) relating to record management and assist in ensuring that agencies observe the best record management practices:
14. (2) Standards relating to record management will be binding only in their application to -
(a) administrative units of the Public Service; and
(b) agencies or instrumentalities of the Crown (other than an agency or instrumentality excluded by regulation from the application of this subsection)
15. (1) The Manager may conduct surveys of the official records and record management practices of agencies as reasonably required for the purposes of this Act.
(2) An agency must afford the Manager reasonable cooperation and assistance in the conduct of such a survey.
16. If the Manager is of the opinion that the record management practices of an agency are inadequate, the Manager must report the matter to the Minister.
23 (1) An agency must not dispose of official records except in accordance with a determination made by the Manager with the approval of the Council.
(2) If an agency requests the Manager to make a determination as to the disposal of official records, the Manager must, as soon as practicable-
State Records has the role of assisting agencies in the effective management of their official records in accordance with best practice principles, and of reporting inadequate practice. These are significant inducements to State Records and agencies to ensure that official records are managed efficiently and effectively. It also has the effect of requiring State Records to clearly develop, communicate and promote the implementation of what we see as being the best practice issues concerning the management of electronic records, both in the short and long term.
Clearly, as discussed in the preceding section, one strategy must be to focus on the design of systems. A key element in this is the disposal of records within these systems. One of the risks which disposal schedules present is that their application, i.e. the sentencing of particular records, is generally undertaken by the agency. At present, State Records has no knowledge of how schedules have been applied (if at all), and the recently conducted survey across the South Australian public sector shows that awareness of the formal requirements is not widespread. Requiring agencies to report what destruction of records has been carried out is part of the strategy to increase awareness of how disposal needs to be managed. But with electronic records, where destruction can proceed so quickly, this approach requires reinforcement from the technology which itself enables that elimination of records.
Given the functionality of most electronic record systems today, it should also be possible to ensure that the disposal of their record outputs is a primary system design element. This proposal is currently under discussion within the Whole of Government Records Management Project. These discussions are focused on the idea of assigning a disposal status to the record at its point of creation rather than dealing with this issue after the records have been generated, used and are being considered for archival storage. This would ensure a consistent approach to the disposal of such records and would also require less effort at the initial creation of each individual record than is currently needed for the appraisal and disposal of large quantities of records at the end of their active life. However, this does not necessarily mean automatic disposal of such records without some later consideration. Clearly, it is impossible to predict the outcome (and importance of that outcome) for every transaction documented as a record.
However, while disposal is a matter of compliance - since it can proceed only by way of a determination approved by the State Records Council - other standards on how agencies manage their records need not be of a mandatory nature. The State Records Act permits such standards to be binding (although not on all agencies in the way that term is defined in the Act). In South Australia, with its advocacy of a whole-of-Government approach, mandatory standards are likely to be supported by agencies - provided there is consultation beforehand. This question is one being actively discussed in other jurisdictions. The community generally will support such standards being mandatory and it seems likely that most agencies would do so too, provided they were not overly detailed or inflexible. This is certainly the view in the Commonwealth. By contrast, the Records Management Office of the Archives Authority of New South Wales issues standards which are intended as a guide only; they do not depend on any statutory authority for their application.
The key question with standards is not their design, nor their status (mandatory or voluntary). Rather it is their implementation and effect. Thus, it is essential that State Records promotes the benefits of adhering to the standards which it has developed, and secures high level support for them from senior officers in each of the ten departments currently comprising the South Australian public service. This promotion is important in gaining the commitment of the appropriate level of resources.
It is probable that not all units making up the ten departments will have the resources to implement the requirements of any particular records management standard. In part, this will be a reflection of the different levels of records management competency across the public sector. Although, as a result of last October’s reorganisation of the whole public sector, there are now ten large departments, they contain a hierarchy of agencies ranging enormously in size and diversity, and in their degree of decentralisation and presence in sites outside metropolitan Adelaide. So it may be worth considering the development of a range of standards, with differing degrees of implementation requirements, which can be adopted by agencies depending on their levels of records management competency and resources. Such a regime might provide the most powerful incentive for all agencies to improve their records management performance, but will need to be established against a presumed whole-of-Government standard.
Section 15 (1) and (2) of the Act authorises State Records to survey both the official records and the records management practices of government agencies, and expects agencies to co-operate and assist. Given the size of the public service and the number of information and record-keeping systems currently in use, conducting detailed surveys presents some problems. It would not be effective for us to attempt to survey all the record systems at once, and the possibilities for missing some material in such a situation could have very serious implications.
As an alternative, State Records is considering adopting an approach similar to that of the Dutch and Canadian national archives, which is to formulate work plans for a specified number of agencies per year and then to sign formal agreements with these agencies. Such a system would allow State Records to concentrate on surveying all of the records of a specified number of agencies per year and to develop a tentative program covering other agencies in future years.
Such an approach would allow us to structure our work flow, but it does carry the risk for some agencies to be missed when they need assistance. In particular, where agencies proposed discarding or upgrading systems without involving State Records, this is likely to create major arrears of work or - far worse - see important records irretrievably lost. Agencies acting in this way and rendering it impossible or very difficult to reproduce the information contained in the older systems will, in terms of the State Records Act, have undertaken illegal disposal of official records. The long term implications of such activities on State Records’ role as acting as the principal repository of the state's recorded heritage are extremely serious.
The objective implicit in these varying strategies is to ensure that State Records targets its assistance where it is most needed. The adopted strategy will need to take into account a number of factors, with particular reference to the risk to Government, to promoting a whole-of-Government records management interface, to being involved with those agencies addressing specialised records-keeping needs because of their particular functions, and to ensuring that the Government is both aware and well positioned to take advantage of changes in developments in records management practices and associated technology.
| Contact the State Records of South Australia |
| Home | Australian Archives | About | FAQs | Resources | Events | Treasures | Search | Site map | Contact | © Copyright | Disclaimer | Credits | Exit |
CAPTION:
The world’s largest island
nation, Australia’s vast coastline and splendid beaches made surf swimming popular,
though risky. The surf life-saving reel, designed by Lyster Ormsby, was first
demonstrated on 23 December 1906 at Bondi Beach. Two weeks later it was first
used to rescue two schoolboys swept out in a rip - twenty-two years later one
of those boys, Charles Kingsford-Smith, made the first aeroplane flight across
the Pacific Ocean.