faulker03

This post in March commented on the slow, closed door approach to review of open government legislation in NSW and elsewhere. The NSW P arliament imposes deadlines but they pass ... and pass. T he Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 and the Government Information (Information Commissioner) Act 2009 include a requirement for a statutory review to be undertaken by the Minister administering the act "as soon as possible after the period of 5 years from the date of assent to this Act" with a report to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 12 months after the end of the period of 5 years. The review is to determine whether the policy objectives remain valid and whether the terms of the Acts remain appropriate for securing these objectives.  The date of assent for b o th acts was 26 June 2009 , the date of commencement 1 July 2010. Five years after the date of assen t takes us to 26 June 201 4 . A period of 12 months after the end of 5 years for the repo...

Clearly some who walk the corridors of power think all wisdom resides withi n. NSW is a classic case, where a statutory review of legislation disappeared from public view in August 2014 and hasn't been heard of since. More below. Then there's the Hawke statutory review of the Commonwealth Freedom of I nformation and Information Commissioner acts in 2012-13 that involved very limited public engagement beyond invited submissions and led to a report in early 2013 that has not been the subject of policy discussion in the public domain since. The one Abbott government FOI initiative, the (ongoing) attempt to legislate to abolish the Office of Australian Information Commissioner was not supported by anything in the review report , on the contrary H awke conclud ing the office was doing a good job. That initiative wasn't discussed beforehand outside government and only with a few inside, with no apparent search for options and better answers to whatever problem (allegedly co...

In t he 2014-15 Annual Report on the operation of the NSW Government Information (Public Access) Act tabled in Parliament las t week, Information C ommissioner E lizabeth Tydd commented that the strategic intent of the GIPA Act is "not being fully realised " because of shortcomings in the proactive release of information by government agencies, and in response to applications for information,that there ha d been an overall decline in information released.  The Mandarin provide s a good summary.  P oints of interest from my reading: c ompliance by agencies with mandatory proactive disclosure requirements is down from 80% in 2012/13 to 69% in 201 4-15 . ( Comment : If agencies aren't fully complying with mandatory proactive disclosure requirement s almost six years after the act came into force you have to wonder what difficulty they have in understanding the term 'mandatory.' The Commissioner doesn't name agencies - in the ca se of those at th...

Jacob Saulwick's report in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday was a barbeque stopper where I was over the weekend and I don't expect that's just because I move in narrow circles: The largest transport project in the country could be shielded from public scrutiny after the government transferred control of the $15.4 billion WestConnex motorway to a "private corporation". The transfer means information about the Sydney Motorway Corporation, which is now in charge of building the motorway, cannot be captured by freedom of information requests.......When Fairfax Media requested, using the Government Information (Public Access) Act (GIPA), the salary and bonus details of top WestConnex representatives, Roads and Maritime Services responded, in part: "Sydney Motorway Corporation Pty Ltd is a private corporation and not a Government agency." Saulwick went on to mention that a spokeswoman for the SMC said a 2014-15 financial report would be submit...

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...