The culture surrounding freedom of information (FOI) in Australia is secretive, new research finds. It’s clear what could be done to create a more accountable governance environment. Releasing information proactively should be enshrined in law to improve Australia’s freedom of information system.
A new report has found major amendments to freedom of information acts are needed to improve the culture of administering access to information in Australia, which is too secretive and open to abuse by governments unwilling to share with the public.
This could include FOI acts explicitly nominating the proactive release of government information so that FOI requests become a last resort. In addition, the severe underfunding of FOI teams in government agencies is the principal bottleneck for well-functioning access to information systems.
The report is the outcome of a three-year investigation into the culture and practice of administering FOI acts across Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia.
More than 350 surveys were completed and more than 250 people were interviewed across 96 agencies as part of the project. These included FOI officers and managers, government agency executives and government ministers.
Changing the culture of secrecy
The most important legal change recommended was making it explicit in FOI acts that proactive information release should operate as the default, and decisions should be made about information release when the information is created.
This would go a long way towards changing from a culture of secrecy to one of openness.
Another principal recommendation is changing the FOI processing timeframes back from calendar to working days, as the current timeframes are unrealistic with current staffing levels. This creates an impossible working environment for FOI officers and managers.
The data showed most FOI officers were knowledgeable, passionate and keen to act as facilitators of information access. They are not a reason why FOI systems in the three states are not reaching their full potential and achieving the aims of the relevant legislation.
The consultation process with third parties mentioned in the information being sought under FOI has become another bottleneck, unnecessarily lengthening decision-making times for FOI requests. Third parties who are mentioned in information releases should only be consulted when the information is potentially sensitive.
Government agencies need to be better supported to develop proactive release policies relevant to their specific needs. This is where information commissioners and ombudsmen can make the most difference in influencing the culture and making FOI work better from the users’ perspective.
Some evidence of this can be seen in the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner’s proactive release template policy.
Abusing the process
Interviews with FOI officers found evidence that ministers’ offices at times abuse the noting process — being made aware of potentially controversial FOI requests — to slow down information being released.
This is an area where commissioners and the ombudsman could do more to ensure this process is not abused and FOI officers can process requests within required timeframes.
In addition to streamlining the application process, locating the information being requested also needs to be improved. The research found that some government agencies have up to six different records management systems — some hard copy (on- and off-site), some first-generation digital (floppy disks and external hard drives, for example), some in data clouds — and none of the systems speak to each other.
Records management sits at the core of good governance and well-functioning FOI. The rule is: poor records management means poor FOI. If you can’t locate the information, you can’t release it to the public.
Public records offices have a major role to play here and need to work in tandem with FOI teams agencies to make sure updated and new records management systems are connected to FOI. Bringing records management fully into the digital age will require an all-of-government holistic approach requiring a major funding boost and political will.
Are governments interested?
Of 55 ministers across the three states, only three — two in South Australia and one in Western Australia — engaged with the study. Those with potentially the most influence over improved functionality of FOI appear uninterested.
By this, governments also forgo the opportunity to use a well-functioning FOI regime as a tool to rebuild trust in government.
A recent indication of what the Victorian government thinks about the importance of access to information is that the Victorian Information Commissioner’s budget was cut by 19.5% over the next four years, severely hampering the agency’s ability to oversee and assess FOI appeals.
Encouragingly, the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner, the Ombudsman SA and the Office of the Information Commissioner Western Australia have accepted the recommendations in this report and will work to implement them.
A further indication of the future of FOI in Victoria will come when the parliamentary inquiry into the operation of FOI reports back later in 2024.
