OPINION: FOI Commissioner is a waste of tax-payer money
OPINION: Victoria’s Office of the Freedom of Information Commissioner is a waste of money and needs to go. But if they don’t have real influence then the millions of taxpayer dollars it costs would be better spent elsewhere.
The position of the Victoria Freedom of Information Commissioner should be abolished but if the Government isn’t serious about real reform in openness and accountability then any replacement would be redundant.
Victoria’s Freedom of Information review system is useless and in my experience, the Commissioner only made decisions after a similar case has been determined in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).
Lynne Bertolini left the position under dubious circumstances, but regardless of whether they replace her with a new Public Access Counsellor as proposed by the Labor Government, if they can’t make decisions independently and with impartiality then there is no point in them existing.
Information or FOI Commissioners in Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales and the Ombudsman in South Australia act with a pro disclosure bias, meaning the onus is on the agency to prove that the release of documents, including CCTV footage, is not in the public interest.
READ MORE BY ALISON SANDY HERE
OPINION: SHEDDING LIGHT ON AUSTRALIA'S FOI LAWS
In Victoria, the situation is the reverse. As a result, it’s the only state that gets to keep hidden de-identified documents relating to abuse of children in state care due to a recent decision by a member of VCAT. This was information that authorities in every other state were obligated to provide under Freedom of Information laws.
The lives of children in care in Victoria and the level of abuse they are subjected to are now being kept hidden despite this information being released in the past.
What’s worse is that those in charge of protecting them are not accountable.
Subsequently, the Office of the Victorian FOI Commissioner confirmed it won’t even contemplate favourable decisions relating to similar applications because a precedent has now been set.
The same goes for CCTV of crimes occurring in public places.
But what’s worse, is it’ll take at least a year before decisions on these matters are even made.
Applicants would be better off being able to go straight to VCAT because then it’s a roll of the dice depending on which member deliberates over the case.
This isn’t ideal, but if the ultimate responsibility is with VCAT anyway, then why have someone in between?
Alison Sandy is the Freedom of Information Editor for Seven News
Email Alison: asandy@seven.com.au
