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...

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...