FoI Request re Catalloy Products

Extract from Hansard

Legislative Council
15 May 2001

Mike Elliott
Leader Australian Democrats
Member of the Legislative Council

Parliament Index
2001 Autumn Sitting Index
Browse by Subject
Search all Democrats material
About the SA Parliament
Hansard on line

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I seek leave to give a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Disability Services a question about the inadequacy of government moves to improve freedom of information.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: My question relates to a state government proposal in this morning's Advertiser which would shift responsibility for FOI disputes to the state Ombudsman. In December 1998 the Western Suburbs Residents Environment Association contacted me with concerns over the environmental impact of foundry operations by Castalloy Manufacturing. They are gravely concerned about the potential health impact of fumes from the plant.

On 22 December 1998 I submitted a request for information under the FOI Act, asking specifically for a copy of Castalloy's environmental improvement program. On 28 January 1999 access to this information was refused by the EPA because, if a voluntary EIP is made public without the particular proponent's agreement, it would discourage preparedness to enter voluntary EIPs.

On 1 February 1999 I requested an internal review, which was refused, and on 19 February I requested an external review by the Ombudsman noting that the EPA act does not ensure that voluntary EIPs remain confidential. The Ombudsman replied on 1 March 1999 that his office would deal with this request as soon as possible.

Throughout 1999 and 2000 the Ombudsman's office contacted me to apologise for delays in processing my request due to the overwhelming backlog of FOI requests that it had: it simply did not have the staff and resources to handle it. Given the findings of the bipartisan Legislative Review Committee report on FOI tabled last October that FOI laws in South Australia were being effectively used as a charter to withhold information, it is not surprising that there was something of a backlog. On 4 January this year I received a letter from the Ombudsman which stated:

Due to a backlog of external reviews being conducted by my office I am still to consider the agency's arguments for determining to refuse you access to documents in any substantive way.

I have in my hand a letter dated 1 May this year in which the Ombudsman apologises for ongoing delays, expressing his frustration at the situation and recommending that I consider a formal appeal against the determination in the District Court-without his actually giving a determination. Two and a half years later, after my initial FOI request, and more than two years after it went to the Ombudsman, I still do not have a determination from the Ombudsman due to a lack of resources. My questions to the minister are:

1. Will the government give additional resources to the Ombudsman as well as the additional responsibilities as appears to be proposed in this morning's Advertiser ?

3. If not, will the minister explain why the people of South Australia should not think that this is a further cover-up of state government secrecy by giving the Ombudsman more responsibility but no more real power?

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (Minister for Disability Services): I thank the honourable member for his question. I am delighted that he has noticed the announcement that the government will be seeking to have the Freedom of Information Act amended in a number of significant respects. One of those respects is that the Ombudsman have power to formally conciliate and mediate on disputed applications. This is a power which is presently absent from the act. The Ombudsman has commented upon it on a number of occasions and the government has responded positively to those comments, and we will be introducing amendments to the legislation to give the Ombudsman that specific power.

The Legislative Review Committee considered that its recommendation about empowering the Ombudsman to have formal power to conciliate and mediate on disputed applications was one of the most important improvements of those that it recommended to the legislation.

It is also significant that amongst the initiatives announced by the government is a reduction in the time within which an agency must respond to a freedom of information application from 45 days to 30. In response to the suggestion that the officers who handle freedom of information within government are insufficiently senior, the government has accepted the suggestion of the Legislative Review Committee that more senior officers be accorded the responsibility for having oversight of freedom of information matters.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: The honourable member is chiming like a well-oiled clock about-

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: Like a squeaky clock, as the honourable member says. If the Ombudsman requires additional resources in light of the new powers that have been given to him under the amended legislation, they will be considered. I do not except that the complexity of many of the applications is such that delays of the kind described by the honourable member should occur. If they do occur, it must be because of some particular reason relating to the particular document or the information sought. If the honourable member will provide me with the details of that particular case, I will investigate it.

I believe, as does the government, that, by providing additional training and more senior people to operate our freedom of information legislation, we will see an improvement in the number of delays that occur. I think it is worth saying, however, that, of over 7 000 applications that are lodged each year, well over 95 per cent ( I believe that is the figure) are dealt with-and dealt with expeditiously and to the satisfaction of all parties.

Complications arise in a number of applications, many of which are very complex, a number relate to people seeking information about WorkCover claims and investigations and, if you read the Ombudsman's annual report, as I do, in relation to freedom of information matters you will see that a great deal of his time is taken up with dealing with these WorkCover matters. I think this particular issue ought to be addressed not only by the WorkCover Corporation and the Ombudsman. I am certainly prepared to have discussions with both parties to effect a satisfactory result.

I say in conclusion that, under the new provisions relating to the Ombudsman's powers, resources will be given to him in response to his specific request, and I am sure that those provisions and the other measures that the government has announced today will lead to a better FOI regime.