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.