There was an item on the news tonight regarding a review being undertaken in Queensland into Freedom Of Information regulations.

http://www.foireview.qld.gov.au/Discussion-paper.htm

The current system has become very unwieldy and in the view of some has been seriously abused by the use of the protection of cabinet documents excusions.

A base position is to protect only that which it is in the public interest to protect or that which harms personal privacy. Both seem to be open to inteference based on politics.

Any thoughts on how this could be avoided?

One approach I've considered is that the release of government information could only be protected if both the leaders of the government and largest opposition party (or their nominated proxies) agreed that it should be protected. That would significantly reduce the opportunity for a party to use exemptions to FOI laws to protect itself from politically awkward exposure but still retain some public interest/privacy protection.

So called independant arbitrators are likely to be appointed by the government and have their own career paths impacted by how well the government likes them so their independance is difficult to ensure.

Are there any major weaknesses in what I propose (apart from us never seeing the detail on discussion for pollies pay rises)?

Can anybody think of a better way of managing the exeptions to FOI laws?

R0bert

who should decide, is the wrong question. who has the power, is the right one.

the politicians will decide, because they have the power to decide. they will arrange foi for their own convenience, just as you would do, or i.

talking about politics is a harmless pastime, but in a nation without democracy it's just an hobby, the gossip of subjects about the activities of their 'betters', in parliament.

if you want to be a citizen, not a civilian, you have to assert yourself over politicians through concerted action. this requires a national character of self confidence which is not present in oz.

who should decide? not the lower class, robert, this is a matter for your betters.

Do we have currently have any constitutional requirements whereby legislation requires bipartisan support? Or even something similar to the U.S. system where to override presidential veto, a 2/3rds majority vote by the Congress is required?

To best honest though, I'd like someone to put a compelling case forward that there is any form of government documentation at all for which it would be truly damaging to the nation for all citizens to have access to it. Everyone's read of hypothetical scare-scenarios about people breaking out in panic upon finding out state secrets, but where's the evidence that this would genuinely be a realistic outcome? It may have occurred long in the past, but I'd suggest most of us are far too apathetic and/or cynical to be shocked by anything at all these days.

FOI, now here's a topic both sides of politics can come together to support. Regrettably, there's often little interest from the public in genuine FOI reforms that could provide a massive boost to good governance and all the flow on effects that entails.

Australia ranks very poorly among developed nations for freedom of information. I've had a couple of experiences trying to FOI documents from the QLD state government, and I suspect I'll be going through a similar effort with the NSW government shortly.

It isn't pleasant.

Wizofaus - I think there are some situations where secrecy is warranted, but they're rare and far between, and I think these issues can be overcome with a sensible reform of when these documents are publicly available.

Take local government documentation relating to tenders and employee contracts. These are kept in confidence due to the commercial nature, seeing as that information could be used for an individual to gain commercial advantage, or harm the council.

All that being said - once the contract's expired and the tender's completed, there's no reason for the documents to remain secret. In theory, they're not kept secret, but in practice it takes an FOI application, and few people are going to go to this trouble - council minutes include financial listings, but generally only for the current quarter.

There have been recent changes to councillor secrecy provisions as the local government reforms are proceeding in Queensland.
I've taken a look at them - in theory they're not too bad, but regrettably I think many councillors will err on the side of caution. Theoretically, any information which is only going to harm the reputation of the council can be released, but not if it's going to have financial or legal ramifications. Walking this line isn't too hard if you give it some thought, but many prefer to play it safe.

Wizofaus

If only it were that easy. FYI is just a part of a well oiled system. I can assure you that having FYO under wraps does play an important part of system that is any times anything but fair.

Take for example when a person has alleged corruption within a Government department or police.
Let us say for argument sake that they require copies of docs held at Government or private offices to clear their names?

You don’t honestly think the police or Government will just hand those docs over do you?

It would be nice but it’s not the way it is. As well private info has been released that should never have been.

DEMOS,
Yes but I think its important people lodge subs so it’s at least on public record.
Mind you keep a copy its amazing what they don’t keep as well as what they do or claim are lost.
Demos said
Who should decide? Not the lower class, Robert, this is a matter for your betters.

Pale replies
Sorry but I don’t quite understand what you mean could you explain please.

IMOP it should never ever be anybody employed by Government making or anybody remotely connected with the concern at hand and never PCJC. Parliamentary ustice Commission.

Thank You for bringing this to public attention Rober

TRTL, I'd like a real concrete example of why allowing public access to a commercial contract is a problem. Remember, *everyone* has access to it, so everyone is able to achieve the same commerical advantage that such access might convey. As far as harming the council, it would surely only harm anyone if they'd done something wrong.

Dear RObert,

Your suggestion probably has as much chance of success as anything I could come up with.

Having worked for government departments I know from experience that whatever they want to withold they will.

Legally they are under an obligation to reply to your request - however they have the convenient umbrella of hiding behind - i.e. - specific FOI exemptions apply to your request. End of story. Very few people are prepared to do battle - and appeal.

Also the custodian of public records is not solely responsible for deciding what may or may not be opened to the public. It probably has a duty to consult with the relevant Responsible Authority in order to reach a decision (Red-tape is horrenduous). Plus government departments tend to 'disappear.'

The Department responsible for your records may no longer exist.
Finding the current department responsible -will be time consuming - most people tend to give up.

I often wondered why the Gov.Dep's have changed their names in the past.Probably their paper shredders were running on to much overtime.FOI is a hiding mechanism, from wrongdoings that is.

FOI Papers are also with held if you happen to be sueing the Government- or to hide proof that there has been a grave miscarriage of justice.
It works for them.

I might add their office isnt very interested either. Contacted them as soon as we saw this thread and spoke to theperson in charge=
Still awaiting the papers.

In all honesty what ever they are up to it 'wont' be to favour the public- thats for sure.

Cheers all

PALEIF - "what ever they are up to it 'wont' be to favour the public"

You are probably spot on with that. I have a faint hope that if the review gets some viable proposals in from the public maybe something better will be put in place. Not holding my breath but no harm in trying.

I'm hoping that others with more experience in these matters will take up this discussion and thrash out a workable approach that the government might find it politically difficult to reject. Just a faint hope that the current premier might be a bit more of an idealist than her predecesor and actually care a bit.

Good luck getting the material you have asked for.

R0bert

Scratch that point in my last post where I held out a faint hope that the current permier might be a bit more idealistic than her predecessor.

A news item on the ABC news reported that the speaker has decided to ban media camera's in the parliment and instead has spent 1/2 a million of taxpayers money to install a camera system. One of the speakers staff will decide what images are released. What chance has that got of being impartial? The premier gave her support for the moves on camera.

We can expect to see a steady stream of footage of bloopers and bad moments for the opposition and images of attentive well behaved government members.

So much for the prospect of reform of FOI if that is the approach the government takes.

Shame on them.

R0bert

I have been fighting the FOI laws for the past few years and all I want is what information they have on my grandfather who was a patient at Goodna Mental Asylum, as it was then known and died there in 1924. He died when my mother was 2 years old so she did not know him and we do not know much about him. The reason he was put in there in the first place is different to what his death certificate says and that is the only place that can tell us a little of the man. I have done all the reviews etc and they still say no I can't have any of the records they hold as it is not in the public interest and family do not have any rights. What gives them the right to stop families from getting to know their ancestors and what deems public interests aren't his living descendants a part of the public. It is over 80 years since my grandfather died and I want to know why I can not get the records they hold on him for our family.