The frustration of Australia’s freedom of information (FOI) practitioners has been aired in a blistering new report, summarising three years of research examining the culture toward information access nationally, and how well the FOI regime is operating.
The report, published by Monash University’s Associate Professor Johan Lidberg and Professor Moira Paterson, lays bare the ways underfunding has railroaded FOI process efficiency and also the culture of FOI teams.
One focus group participant described being in “siege mode” and said they regarded their role as being one that should educate and inform staff and ensure the agency was complying with FOI laws.
But, the public servant observed, they had no actual capacity to provide any intellectual leadership as an FOI manager because all of their time was absorbed “begging for resources”.
“In reality, what my role has been for the past 18 months is pretty much begging for resources … trying to justify why we need more people and putting together endless amounts of stats around that in different ways,” the public servant said.
“I haven’t really done any intellectual leadership of the team in the past 18 months … I don’t even have much time to do things like look at our website for all the good practice notes and things that they’re putting out there, because I don’t have the time or space to implement them into our processes. So basically, I see my role as leading a team that’s in siege mode.”
At a special launch event for the paper in Melbourne, WA information commissioner Catherine Fletcher said the difficulty with resourcing FOI teams was well-known to her office. She said the report provided valuable evidence which reinforced long-standing anecdotal views shared by agency reference groups over many years.
“Referring to that quote [about being under siege], that doesn’t surprise me at all,” Fletcher said.
“I’d also like to emphasise some of the findings that were really positive — about the passion and dedication of FOI officers and practitioners. We were thrilled by the validation of our thoughts and our experience, particularly in WA, about their engagement with the principles of FOI legislation.”
The information commissioner said the findings would assist her office with its efforts to support and educate FOI practitioners, knowing their particular pressures, as well as lift soft and hard skills.
“To have this research evidence to support our submissions to government to say ‘This needs to be better resourced, these people feel under siege in many cases’ is going to be very useful,” she said.
The research report also outlined how robust FOI processes and access to information were a cornerstone of genuine liberal democracies, and people in positions of power were expected to be answerable for their exercise of authority.
Transparency and openness, exemplified by FOI, were tools to build trust between the political sphere and the public, the researchers explained.
“The research … highlights the critical role of adequate funding for records management (RM) and FOI processes in promoting a culture of transparency and the effective operation of the FOI acts,” the report read.
“Inadequate funding for staffing, staff training (including guidance materials) and RM processes undermines [FOI regimes].”
“A well-functioning and comprehensive FOI system serves two primary purposes: (1) it acts as a deterrent against corruption and maladministration within the political and administrative systems, as those involved are aware of the high likelihood of being exposed; and (2) by empowering the public with independent access to information, it enables greater participation in the political process.”
Supported by ARC funding and the information commissioners in Victoria and Western Australia and the South Australian ombud, the project collated information from individual interviews and focus groups between 2021 and 2024.
The research team set out to map the culture and practice of administering FOI acts across Australia, and consider what was needed to create a more fit-for-purpose regime.
The “Culture of Implementing Freedom of Information in Australia” report made 11 recommendations, including calls for sweeping law reform to update the legislative framework dealing with digital records, better skills and training for public servants, and strengthening a culture of proactive release.
The recommendations for improving FOI culture and administration were:
- Making explicit that proactive information release should operate as the default rather than the use of FOI applications as a means for providing access to information.
- Ensuring that terminology and procedures are reflective of modern digital environments, rather than of the paper-based environments that prevailed when the FOI acts were first enacted.
- Streamlining consultation requirements to ensure that consultation is required only where it is reasonable and practicable and that it does not unduly extend decision-making timelines.
- Ensuring that legislative timeframes are realistic having regard to the processes involved and based on working days, rather than calendar days.
- Including within the legislation clear and adequate procedures for dealing with vexatious applications.
- Supporting agencies in developing proactive release policies relevant to their specific needs.
- Ensuring that any ministerial noting processes are structured to ensure that FOI officers can process requests within required timeframes.
- Providing recurring sector-specific FOI training.
- Providing recurring RM and FOI education for wider agency employees, including executives.
- Ensuring that RM rollout is consistent with both RM best practice and FOI efficiency.
- Working with state public record offices regarding agency adherence to RM policies and strengthening the knowledge and understanding between RM best practices and FOI efficiencies.
This piece was first published by The Mandarin.
