The Auditor General tabled his report on FOI and Public Sector bodies several days ago. We’ve copied some extracts from his findings below. The full report may be accessed at: http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/publications/20120418-FOI/20120418-FOI.pdf
“Freedom of information (FOI) is a cornerstone of a thriving democracy. FOI upholds the public’s fundamental right to access information held by the government. The community’s ability to scrutinise public sector activities and hold the government of the day accountable for its decisions is affected by the transparency and accessibility of government information.
Since the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act) was introduced, both the number and the complexity of requests for information have increased considerably. In 2010–11 there were 34 052 FOI requests, compared to 4 702 requests in 1984–85, the first full year the Act was in operation……
Since FOI legislation was introduced 30 years ago, Victoria has gone from being at the forefront of FOI law and administration to one of the least progressive jurisdictions in Australia. Over time, apathy and resistance to scrutiny have adversely affected the operation of the Act, restricting the amount of information being released. As a result, agencies are not meeting the object of the Act, which is ‘to extend as far as possible the right of the community to access information’.
The public’s right to timely, comprehensive and accurate information is consequently being frustrated. The Victorian public sector’s systemic failure to support this right is a failure to deliver Parliament’s intent.
The prevailing culture and lack of transparent processes allow principal officers— secretaries and chief executive officers of agencies—to avoid fulfilling their responsibilities. Principal officers are not being held to account for their agency’s underperformance and non-compliance.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Given recent events at VCAT, and Council’s repeated failure to answer public questions directly and comprehensively, we believe that many of the Auditor General’s findings are also applicable to Glen Eira.
The 2010/2011 Annual Report contains some revealing statistics –
In 2005/6 the number of FOI requests totalled 13. Of these, 3 were granted full access and 5 partial access.
In 2010/11 the number of FOI requests burgeoned out to 37 (with council claiming that 10 were ‘determined’ not to be FOI requests) and only one application was granted full access.
It is at least encouraging that residents are beginning to exercise their rights in applying for FOI when they are not satisfied with council responses to their questions. It is, however, concerning that the culture that is currently attributed to state agencies also appears to be alive and well and thriving in Glen Eira. Hardly surprising we say, when so much relies on secrecy and behind closed doors decision making!
April 20, 2012 at 9:38 AM
You are entitled to your opinion but it doesn’t make you right. As I understand it FOI in Glen Eira is determined by an Officer other than Administration. Also it is unfair to just simply apply the AG’s Report to Glen Eira without any proof. Perhaps the recent VCAT decision shows that Glen Eira is an exception.
April 20, 2012 at 11:26 AM
You sound very naive. There is no such thing as an independent officer in Glen Eira. Even granted that the FOI person were to be independent, if you seek a review it goes up the feeding chain to top admin. If you’re still not happy then you go to VCAT. Most people wouldn’t bother going to this extent.
April 20, 2012 at 11:27 AM
Well, perhaps you should get your facts right- it is well known that FOI officers are actually staff members of Council administration & can be influenced in how they treat FOI requests by their supervisers/managers/CEOs , even dare I say councillors & mayors.
And it is indeed valid to extrapolate how state government agencies perform on FOI to local government – a valid research tool.
April 20, 2012 at 11:58 AM
You are both correct anon 11.26am and11.27am . The point is that none of us actually knows what the situation is at Glen Eira. The FOI application could be tainted and interfered with, but equaly it could be clean. VCAT in the mulch case felt it was clean and without further proof, not conjecture, I accept that. Will you?
April 20, 2012 at 4:46 PM
Wrong again! VCAT didn’t make any decision on the “cleanliness” of the documents. It concluded that they were exempt under Section 30 of the Act which means they were regarded as working documents. Their legitimacy, accuracy, distortions were not assessed.
April 20, 2012 at 1:54 PM
just noticed on Wikipedia who Caulfield Racecourse is owned by
Please click on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caulfield_Racecourse
Was there any doubt?
April 20, 2012 at 9:22 PM
Three years ago, Neil Pilling crowed on his website that his Greens party had enabled the Caulfield racecourse to be opened up by the community. He stated ” I understand that among the concessions given by Gavin Jennings are that the land is to be valued and any difference between the value of the two pieces of land is to go to the Crown, and that the land swap will not occur until the MRC has fulfilled its commitments in relation to the centre of the racecourse and signposting to better inform the public of the land’s availability. Further the MRC will have to pay commercial rent for the areas it uses for training, and that rent is, according to Jennings, to “be available for the ongoing maintenance and development of the park or other Crown public land within the Glen Eira area.” He also flagged that he could see Council being the manager of the land in the middle of the racecourse that is to be a public park.
The tide has turned remarkably- special thanks to Sue Pennicuik for her efforts , Gavin Jennings for acknowledging and acting on the inequities and those in the community and council who have campaigned long and hard on this issue”
Perhaps the Councillors should each go to the racecourse and see what has changed. Thanks Neil for nothing.
April 20, 2012 at 9:44 PM
Just changed the wikipedia entry.
The Caulfield Racecourse and Reserve is indisputably Crown Land given by Queen VIctoria to the people of Victoria for the purposes of racecourse, public park and public recreations area. All legal views sought endorse that the above three purposes/usages are equal (i.e. much to the MRc’s disgust. racecourse usage does not trump the other usages).
April 21, 2012 at 6:29 PM
well done disgruntled but that is so funny it has changed back to Melbourne Racing Club. I am sure people are amused. Queen Vic would not be!
April 20, 2012 at 4:25 PM
It would be most interesting to obtain through FOi the conspiracy between Council and MRC over residents on C60. Speaking of the racecourse, one week to go to replace sections of the tin fence with pallisade as per the agreement. Geez they must have some fast working contractors (or, most likely, will have some very angry residents and embarrassed politicians).
April 21, 2012 at 6:46 AM
I wonder if there are any legal implications, just like liquidated damages being applied at GESAC? And if so, would our pro MRC Council apply them?
April 20, 2012 at 6:59 PM
Port Phillip’s FOI and its reporting structures stand in stark contrast to Glen Eira. We’ve copied this from their Annual Report –
Details of requests for 2010/11 are:
Total requests received 41
Total valid requests 33
Access granted in full 6
Access granted in part 19
Access denied in full 1
No documentation found 1
Requests withdrawn 1
Documents released outside the FOI Act. 1
Requests under consideration as at 30 June 2010 4
Internal reviews sought 1
Appeals lodged with VCAT 0
Total application fees collected $717.10
Total application fees waived $71.70
BAYSIDE is also more forthcoming with its reporting –
There is an application procedure, and rights of access are limited by exemptions prescribed in the legislation. Applications
must be accompanied with the appropriate application fee and specific details of the information requested.
2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11
Total number of new applications
received for the period
41 43 22 50 67 92
Number of requests where
access was granted in full
38 38 18 45 64 80
Number of requests where
access was granted in part
2 1 0 0 1 4
Number of requests where
access was denied in full
0 2 1 0 0 0
Number of requests where
information was unable
to be provided
1 2 0 2 2 2
Number of requests
not yet finalised
0 0 3 3 0 6
Number of Internal Reviews
0 0 0 0 0 0
Number whereby original
decision overturned
0 0 0 0 0 0
VCAT Appeals
0 0 0 0 0 0