faulker03

Farrah Tomazin in The Sunday Age summarises the report commissioned in April by the Department of Premier and Cabinet into the office of Victorian FOI commissioner Lynne Bertolini​ that exposes "a litany of problems, including "unusual" procurement practices, unmet targets, and "poor conduct" towards some staff." "The final report, now with Parliament's joint accountability and oversight committee, paints the picture of a dysfunctional office, with "poor conduct" towards the two assistant commissioners; a backlog of reviews and complaints by people seeking FOI documents; and favouritism towards some staff, with "considerable anxiety and stress" among others. It also reveals: Since December 2012 the FOI office spent $825,946 on contracts with two selected legal service providers when equivalent organisations in NSW, Queensland and the federal sphere use little or no external legal advice. A further $55,000 was spe

In a Media Release last Friday Attorney General Brandis said "Timothy Pilgrim was appointed acting Australian Information Commissioner for a three month period in July 2015 while the Government considers options for the future of the Information Commissioner position."   Today Jane Lee in Fairfax reports a spokesman for the Attorney General as saying  "The government remains committed to its budget savings measure to abolish the OAIC... The bill before the Senate to abolish the OAIC would abolish the positions of Australian Information Commissioner and Freedom of Information Commissioner.  'Considers options for the future' - "thinks carefully about choices before making a decision." Hmm...

Transparency International Australia (TIA) is supporting the TIA Queensland Regional Committee in conducting a pilot Survey in relation to public sector corruption in Australian states.  If you have the time help by completing the Survey today.

Not...  as two experts outline years of failure to pay attention to privacy protection. Dr Roger Clarke in a detailed working paper examines the last 15 years' incursions into human rights based on 'the terrorist threat' and highlights the limited attention paid to privacy impact assessment: Democracy in Australia is gravely threatened by a flood of measures harmful to human rights that have been introduced since 2001, and a large proportion of which are unjustified and not subject to effective controls. The passage of these measures through the Parliament has been achieved on the basis of their proponents' assertions and without appropriate scrutiny. Parliament had available to it various forms of impact assessment techniques, but failed to require that such methods be applied. The study reported here found that one particular form of evaluation, Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA), should have been performed, but was seldom applied, and where it was applied the process a

It's the first indication in 15 months that a rethink of sorts is underway about plans to abolish the Office of Australian Information Commissioner. In his announcement that Timothy Pilgrim has been appointed Australian Privacy Commissioner for a period of twelve months commencing 19 October 2015, Attorney General Brandis said Pilgrim's current three month appointment as Acting Australian Information Commissioner is  "while the Government considers options for the future of the Information Commissioner position." Options haven't been mentioned previously as the government single mindedly pursued abolition of the OAIC. Legislation before the Senate would eliminate both the information commissioner and FOI commissioner positions and a whole range of FOI oversight and information policy functions.There is no majority in support of the bill in the Senate. Faced with this reality it's clearly time for a rethink. Back in May 2014 Attorney General Brandis

ABC picks up on Senator Conroy and Bob Katter not certifying Department of Finance entitlement expenditure for years-noted here four weeks ago.  Senator Conroy could hear feet in the corridor and has now signed for expenditure back to 2011. Bob Katter's defence amounts to are you kidding, I run two offices you know.... "More than 100 other MPs have failed to sign their half-yearly certification at least once." Certification details are listed for each reporting period.

The Nick Baker - Richard McKenzie piece in Fairfax Media on the two pronged attempt to utilise freedom of information laws to obtain data from surveys on smoking has raised some interesting issues.  However some reactions - that the applicant shouldn't be able to exercise the right to seek access to government information, that this sort of thing may frustrate public health research and may even warrant legislative amendment - seem way over the top.  ( Addendum - an opinion piece from the Los Angeles Times on the right to access scientific research undertaken at public expense-within limits. And more pertinently this on "Big Tobacco' FOI rights on The Conversation UK and this on The Conversation Australian version. I'm with Nola Ries of University of Newcastle-tobacco companies should be free to use FOI laws even if we don't like it.) Without seeing the detail of what was sought, what was released in NSW and what reasons were given for refusal of access in Vic

Bernard Keane in Crikey today on the FOI rollback campaign that includes the unsuccessful push to legislate to abolish the Office of Australian Information Commissioner, and in the meantime crimp its capacity to undertake its full range of functions, coinciding with public service leaders now speaking of how they thwart the law of the land. On the same subject former NSW Attorney General John Dowd in his capacity as president of the Australian section of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) writes to Attorney General Brandis, as reported in The Guardian Australia , reminding that the rule of law involves the ongoing effective discharge of the functions of a statutory body such as the OAIC until such time as parliament no longer requires: ... the government is seeking to achieve executively what it cannot achieve legislatively,” Dowd said in the letter to Brandis. “This is of profound concern to the ICJ which has the responsibility of defending the rule of law. “The rule

Toby McIntosh on Freedominfo.org in Washington DC did some sleuthing to identify the unnamed country referred to in the Open Government Steering Committee minutes of its July meeting- and it's Australia Australia’s lack of action as a member of the Open Government Partnership is “particularly concerning,” the OGP Steering Committee decided at a recent meeting. The Steering Committee set a new deadline for Australia “to recommit to OGP,” according to recently released minutes of the July 22-23 meeting. (See this page on the OGP website, scroll down.) After two years as a member, Australia has yet to prepare a National Action Plan, the key component of participation in the OGP in which members make specific commitments on how to advance open government. Australia, which joined in May of 2013, should have created its first action plan by May of 2014, according to an OGP chart. The submission of a plan is followed by other steps, including a one-year self-evaluation and then a

Victoria's plan to enhance FOI watchdog powers stands in sharp contrast to the Federal Government's tenacity in clinging to its plan to abolish the Office of Australian Information Commissioner one way or the other and in the meantime leaving the office with one acting commissioner instead of the three positions parliament established. Freedom of Information Commissioner Lynne Bertolini issued this Media Statement on Friday that she will step down on 5 September citing the government's intention to  create a new position of Public Access Counsellor.  Farrah Tomazin in The Age suggests other factors may have contributed, and reports Special Minister of State Gavin Jennings providing this general update on reforms: Mr Jennings did not go into details of the review, other than to say the government had identified "significant opportunities to reform the FOI system", improve oversight and make it easier for Victorians to access information. He said the new Off

The post Impact of cutbacks at OAIC attracted a response from Acting Australian Information Commissioner Timothy Pilgrim who in a letter pointed out correctly that I did not provide a complete picture of how the OAIC is managing its workload.  The Acting Commissioner said the OAIC seeks to provide "timely case management processes within the resources we have been allocated for each of our functions.We have been managing both (Freedom of Information and Privacy) jurisdictions effectively within those available resources and the matters you refer to reflect the OAIC’s focus on finalising older matters while also providing a prompt and efficient response to recent matters." Fair enough.  And I accept Mr Pilgrim's point about the professionalism and commitment of staff  "who have been working hard to ensure the provision of an effective and efficient service in the current circumstances."  But the statistics he cites show IC FOI reviews received and finalise

With the functions of the three commissioners that make up the Office of Australian Information Commissioner now in the hands of a single acting commissioner , Timothy Pilgrim's 'in folder' will be heavily loaded with important matters.  None more so than files concerning non delegable functions that the commissioner only can exercise such as freedom of information review decisions, and determinations on privacy complaints not resolved by conciliation. The latest published FOI review decision is on a matter lodged with the OAIC in April 2014. The latest published privacy determination is on an application lodged in August 2013. How many applications remain in the queue and how long they have been there is not known.  The latest Quarterly Statistics about Freedom of Information and Privacy complaints and reviews published by the Office are for the period April - June 2014, before the cutbacks on funding announced as the government launched its initiative to abolish the

Six years ago the then government announced a 'root and branch review' of parliamentary entitlements following critical findings by the Auditor General The committee chaired by Barbara Belcher reported in April 2010. The government sat on the report for a year before releasing it. As recounted here the Auditor General six weeks ago reported something had been done on 17 of the committee's 39 recommendations. But "there has been no formal government response to the recommendations of the CROPE (Belcher) report, or subsequent Remuneration Tribunal report, in relation to fundamental reform of the legislative and administrative framework underpinning the provision of Parliamentarians’ ‘tools of trade’."  Today the Prime Minister announced The rules governing the parliamentary entitlements system need reform....The rules lack clarity and lack transparency. We need a system that is simple, effective and clear. We need a system that more independently sets and m