BAILLEAU'S FOI WATCHDOG MORE LIKE A TOOTHLESS TIGER

Farrah Tomazin January 1, 2012
THERE'S an amusing chapter in Tony Blair's memoirs where the former British prime minister reveals one of his great regrets: the introduction of Labour's freedom-of-information laws. ''There really is no description of stupidity, no matter how vivid, that is adequate,'' Blair writes in his book, A Journey. ''The truth is that the FOI Act isn't used, for the most part, by 'the people'. It's used by journalists. For political leaders, it's like saying to someone who is hitting you over the head with a stick: 'Hey, try this instead,' and handing them a mallet.’’
It's a cautionary tale, and one can't help but wonder if Ted Baillieu and his advisers read it with interest before unveiling their own changes to Victoria's FOI laws last month. The Coalition's changes are a wasted opportunity; a far cry from its pledge to end the ''culture of secrecy'' that has beset the system for years.
In theory, FOI is simple: ask public agencies for information, wait for a response within 45 days, and hope you get the documents you want. In reality, it's a farcical process, hindered by delays, political interference and an apparent desire to keep more information in than out.
Under Baillieu's changes, Victoria will have its first FOI commissioner, an independent watchdog able to investigate complaints and review decisions by departments that refuse to release information. This is welcome (currently, reviews are conducted by public servants from the same department), and streets ahead of anything Labor did to enhance FOI during 11 years in office.
But if you dig a little deeper, the details tell a different story. The new commissioner will not be able to review decisions by ministers or department heads. He or she will not have authority to release ''cabinet-in-confidence'' documents (one of the main reasons to refuse access) or anything relating to national security. The commissioner cannot compel agencies to act on recommendations and, unlike other watchdogs, such as the state ombudsman, has no power to conduct ''own motion'' investigations. The commissioner's rulings to have documents released can also be appealed, leading to more delays, and if the commissioner does not respond to a request for a review within 30 days, this could automatically be viewed as a decision not to provide the information. Boiled down, Baillieu's new FOI watchdog looks like a lame duck. 
This is disappointing given the Coalition spent years in opposition being stonewalled by Labor on almost 1000 FOI requests.
  ''Freedom of information should be a matter of saying: ask and you shall receive,'' Baillieu once told Parliament.
Wishful thinking. The government says its changes strike the right balance between public access to information and ensuring the government can operate with a reasonable level of confidentiality. But access to information is a keystone of democracy and these reforms don't live up to the Premier's pledge for ''no hidden agenda, no spin, no secrecy''. For all the talk of more transparency, the Coalition's record is patchy. After a year in office, some ministers (or their press secretaries) still refuse to respond to questions or interview requests.
Complex legislation - such as the anti-corruption commission bill - is introduced to Parliament with limited time for debate.
Important reports have been handed to journalists after press conferences, presumably to avoid tricky questions. And in Parliament, hundreds of questions on notice relating to government policy remain unanswered, months after Labor and the Greens asked them.
The government's handling of FOI is merely the latest concern. Too many requests for information still face excessive delays and when you finally get a response, the grounds for refusal are often laughable. 
Take for instance, a request by a colleague for the names of 200 people who accepted taxpayer-funded hospitality at the grand prix (disclaimer: I was one of them). The premier's FOI officer, Don Coulson, refused partly because some guests were ''well known to the public'' and that disclosure ''would serve no discernible public interest''. Since when is taxpayer-funded largesse not in the public interest?
In another case, Labor was refused documents on the cost of deploying 940 extra protective services officers on Melbourne's train network because an FOI officer ruled that releasing information could cause ''mischief'' or ''confusion'’.
In some cases, the government has refused to hand over documents despite identical information being released under Labor, such as the Premier's appointment diary.
If the government is serious about being more open, it would give its new watchdog some real teeth. As Baillieu said so many times in opposition: freedom of information in Victoria has become ''more like freedom 'from' information''. So far, not much has changed.
Farrah Tomazin is state politics editor. Twitter: @FarrahTomazin
This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/baillieus-foi-watchdog-more-like-a-toothless-tiger-20111231-1pgfu.html