Policy approach in Canberra: Ready, Fire, Aim

The Commonwealth Ombudsman wasn't consulted prior to the announcement of the decision to abolish the Office of Australian Information Commissioner and to reassign the FOI complaints function to that office. No additional resources were allocated in the Budget but some informal talks have started with AGD. Good luck. Extract from Estimates below.

The intelligence agencies, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, and the National Security Legislation Monitor Brett Walker SC weren't consulted either about the abolition of Mr Walker's position and he got to know about it on 13 May, Budget day.

Rest easy in your beds though, we have plenty of oversight of those protecting national security according to Dr McCarthy, the Associate Secretary of National Security and International Policy, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet:

 Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Why is the government abolishing the position?

Dr McCarthy : The government concluded that there is a range of oversight mechanisms available for national security legislation in addition to the National Security Legislation Monitor. Over the course of his three-year term, the monitor has conducted a very thorough review of national security legislation. At the same time the Council of Australian Governments commissioned a review of counter-terrorism legislation. That was a review that was agreed to when the Commonwealth and the states and territories agreed to new counter-terrorism legislation in 2005. At the moment, the government is considering some 98 recommendations in total from the monitor's second and third reports and the COAG review of national security legislation. There are also oversight mechanisms such as the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and of course other committees of the parliament.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Why then would the UK independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, have cited our legislation as a model for other democracies to follow?

Dr McCarthy : Well, that is the view of the UK monitor.

 Extracts from both Estimates hearings on 26 May below. 

FOI in South Australia needs a makeover

And it's not just the act that needs an update after 21 years. Recent reports by the Ombudsman suggest agency culture is a  bigger worry.
 
Planning
Ombudsman Richard Bingham's Growth Investigation Areas Report and the failings identified in the engagement of consultants without rigorous and accountable procurement processes to ensure probity and identify and deal with conflicts of interest, attracted plenty of attention in South Australia last week.

Less so the Freedom of Information aspects.

The GIA saga started in 2009 and involved a dogged FOI battle by The Greens MLC Mark Parnell to attempt to access key documents, with the planning agency running interference at every step of the way. Parnell took four knockbacks to the Ombudsman, one after another. Bingham ruled in his favour, that the documents were not exempt, each time. Planning took one case a further step to the District Court, which upheld Bingham's decision. The court did the same in another case, upholding Bingham's decision on review  in an application by Opposition MLC Vickie Chapman for relevant planning documents. 

The information access battles are recounted in FOI Background to the GIA Report.

Someone will surely ask what all this darting and weaving cost the SA taxpayer?  

The prevailing culture speaks for itself.

As to the GIA report produced by the consultants, it has not been publicly released. The Ombudsman (p 66) in an FOI review in 2010 found the report was exempt as a cabinet document. However the 30 Year Plan that it fed into was similarly a cabinet document that the government had released. Bingham intimated at the time that cabinet confidentiality would not be undermined if the GIA report was released, noting the objects and principles of administration of the FOI act. This time it's sharper: given his concerns about the consultants and Planning SA's failure to adequately address the conflict of interest,

 "I consider it would be in the public interest for the government to revisit its views and consider releasing the report."

Other recent reports by the Ombudsman show culture at Treasury and Finance is similarly tight. And the South Australian Tourism Authority was unable to produce persuasive evidence to justify refusal of access to contract information now five years old. It also didn't have a handle on the pro-disclosure public interests that favour release of this type of information in any event.

The strange case of the ombudsman's annual report that wasn't

John Wood's account in The Canberra Times about the Freedom of Information request for the annual report completed by Allan Asher before his resignation as Ombudsman last year but not tabled in parliament deserves a wide audience, particularly the darting and weaving over the application before the Australian Information Commission ruled it must be released.

So would the record of any back and forward between the office of the Ombudsman and the minister publicly involved in his departure  Gary Gray, concerning the decision to ditch Asher's version and table that of acting ombudsman, Alison Larkins. 

In 28 years or so I imagine.

Wood with an FOI involvement stretching way back to the seventies and as a former Deputy Ombudsman had the wood on the office on this one, so to speak.

(Update: Markus Mannheim elsewhere in the Times raises other issues and reports this response from the minister:

Special Minister of State Gary Gray has denied he intervened to prevent the publication of Mr Asher's report. Mr Asher alleged this week the minister had interfered with the report, but Mr Gray's office said the claim was ''completely baseless''. ''It would be highly inappropriate for the government to seek to influence the independent office of the Ombudsman,'' the minister's spokesman said. ''At no time did minister Gray or his office seek to alter or delay the ombudsman's annual report. Indeed, the only version provided to the minister's office was [Ms Larkins's] final report, and this was submitted in compliance with statutory requirements.'' Mr Gray's office also said if Mr Asher had evidence of corruption in the public service, it was ''vitally important that he refer it to the appropriate authorities as soon as possible''.

There is more in The Public Sector Informant, these days available on-line-well done Markus in chewing the editor's ear.

The emerging integrity branch of government- so far "more by good luck than good planning"

At the AIAL National Administrative Law Conference in Adelaide last month, Deputy NSW Ombudsman Chris Wheeler spoke to this paper "Review of Administrative Conduct and Decisions in NSW since 1974-an ad hoc and incremental approach to radical change." (Box)

 At 38 pages it's a big but worthwhile and informative read including observations about changing attitudes within government to openness and transparency, and whistleblower protection.

 One of his two main points picks up on a theme advanced by then NSW Chief Justice James Spigelman in 2004, and by the Commonwealth and Victorian Ombudsman and others including NSW Ombudsman Bruce Barbour in this 2010 speech, that it is time to recognise a fourth branch of government – the ‘ Integrity’ branch."The role of the agencies within that Branch would be to ensure proper practice on the part of the organisations within the other branches of government." Wheeler argues for a review, clarification about where review bodies best fit, and some rationalisation and simplification.

Two extracts:

Victoria-same old story

Once again the Victorian Ombudsman laments the state of administration of the Freedom of Information Act. He won't be sorry perhaps to see his role, and added responsibilities go off to the yet to be appointed FOI commissioner. It's a big job for someone-but who?

 Annual Report 2012, Part 1.pdf (790KB) -FOI at p 55 with plenty of case studies to support his point:

It is disappointing that, increasingly, FOI is not complied with by departments and agencies in the spirit of the Attorney-General’s guidelines. Departments and agencies seem increasingly to have forgotten that the Freedom of Information Act was intended to be a means of increasing the openness and transparency of government, not a means to justify delay and non-release of information based on technical, tedious and tenuous interpretations of the Act. This trend may explain the increase in complaints to my office. Many of the matters brought to me involve agencies relying on an excuse not to release a document. However, I have not been able to look into the merits of the decision...

Mr Brouwer remains hopeful, at the same time giving a polite ombudsmanlike nudge that the government's much trumpeted big step forward isn't all it's cracked up to be:

 With the creation of the new Freedom of Information Commissioner under the
Freedom of Information Amendment (Freedom of Information Commissioner)
Act 2011, FOI will no longer be within my jurisdiction. The new Act replaces the
internal reviews conducted within agencies with external reviews conducted
by the Commissioner. This change to the administration of FOI should promote
more open, prompt and accurate FOI decision making in agencies. There are,
however, limitations in the new framework which may reduce the effectiveness
of the changes introduced by the new Act. Those limitations, which include the
exclusion of documents claimed to be cabinet documents from the external
review process, and the exclusion of Ministerial offices from that process, may
need to be reviewed by the government in coming years in order to ensure that
the improvements that the new regime could achieve can actually be attained.

Delay was the biggest complaint-and this with 45 days!! Stern letters were sent to the Secretaries of the Departments of Human Services, Justice, Premier and Cabinet, Health and Primary Industries critical of failures to deal with these requests in a timely manner.

Commonwealth Ombudsman brief on FOI.

The Commonwealth Ombudsman's Annual Report 2009-2010 has one page (83) on the 137 complaints received on Freedom of Information matters, a small number in comparison to the total number of 38000. "As with previous years, the majority of (FOI) complaints were about delay, the imposition and remission of fees and charges, and decisions that were not well explained." The baton-stick?- has largely changed hands from 1 November with the establishment of the Office of Australian Information Commissioner.

NSW Ombudsman wraps up on FOI

The 2009-2010 NSW Ombudsman Annual Report  marks the end of an era as the Ombudsman's long standing role in dealing with freedom of information (FOI) complaints and reviews passed to the Information Commissioner from 1 July with establishment of that office and the commencement of the GIPA Act. The Ombudsman reports (FOI at p 104) continuation of a downward trend in complaints: 145 formal complaints about the handling of FOI applications by agencies and local councils compared to 186 last year and 225 the year before.

"As predicted last year, we think this trend can be attributed to greater openness by agencies following memoranda by the Premier encouraging proactive release of information by government agencies. Another reason is the consistent decrease in complaints about the NSW Police Force (NSWPF) due to it having substantially reduced its backlog in processing FOI applications."

Particular issues covered in the report include an indication that pay and performance information of senior university executives will be required to be included in annual reports; excessive agency caution in disclosing business information,; overuse of legal privilege; and special mention of several investigations concerning complaints against the NSW Police Force. Journalists appear to have been a significant source of complaints.

To repeat what I said a year ago, thanks to Bruce Barbour, his predecessors in the position and longtime FOI experts in the office particularly Deputy Ombudsman Chris Wheeler, and Wayne Kosh, for holding the open government banner high even through often very dark times when other government leaders were missing in action.

Integrity missing in administration of NSW law

The full text isn't on the website (Update: it's here and raises a whole range of important issues that go beyond the SMH report) but this Sydney Morning Herald report of a speech by NSW Ombudsman Bruce Barbour about ethical and professional lapses in the NSW public sector  draws from Freedom of Information investigations to illustrate lack of transparency, and that too many public servants regard integrity as an old-fashioned, optional concept. Barbour calls for a public service integrity act.(Update on an update:This SMH( second on the page) editorial picks up on broader issues and suggests Premier Keneally should revitalise the current discredited system -  even at this late stage, it could do wonders for her government's battered reputation.)

There has been no agency in NSW charged with overall responsibility for leadership and oversight on public sector values, ethics, and professional standards since the abolition of the public service board thirty years ago. It shows. 

Barbour is right in acknowledging the integrity of a vast majority of public servants across the state, but pointing to too many examples of a lack of ethics and integrity which signalled a ''lack of transparency'' in public life. 

It may take a while for the message to get through but since 1 July improper interference with decisions and concealing information when dealing with a GIPA application are criminal offences, not just ethical lapses.

Update continued-Here are Barbour's concluding remarks, including a call, strongly supported here, for public debate and re-examination of the integrity structure. A response from Premier Kennealy in a speech soon would kick this along nicely.

Some Victorian agencies just do their own FOI thing

Ombudsman George Brouwer

There is a tone of "when will they ever.." in the Victorian Ombudsman's introductory comments in the chapter on Freedom of Information (page  50) in the Annual Report 2009-2010 published last week, and it's 26 years since the FOI act commenced in that state. And a note of warning, if one was needed, about the challenge for those in the Commonwealth, Queensland, NSW and Tasmania facing up to the task of leading - for the first time, or again, or still - on culture change: years of guidelines, recommendations, advice and prodding may not be enough to deliver the goods:

"There is still a culture within some agencies regarding limiting access to documents under freedom of information (FOI) legislation. I regularly identify administrative actions that are contrary to or simply disregard the Attorney-General’s guidelines and the administrative recommendations from my 2006 Review of the Freedom of Information Act, which all 10 departments accepted. Despite the availability of the Attorney-General’s guidelines and the Department of Justice’s practice notes, agencies appear to just ‘do their own thing’. Not only does this lead to delays in the processing of requests, but there are inconsistencies in the way the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act) is applied across government."

The number of complaints received by the Ombudsman about FOI matters was around the 180 mark, the same as the previous year. The case studies cited in the chapter, all about process rather than the act itself and substantive decisions on access, remind that Victoria lags the reform states on information access generally, and FOI in particular:

State of SA bridges out in the open

A year ago the South Australian Ombudsman described a decision by the Transport Services Department to refuse access to safety reports about bridges on grounds disclosure would aid terrorists, as absurd, irrational and ridiculous.The reports of 22 bridges rated "fair", "poor" or "unsafe" have now been released, presumably as a result of the Ombudsman's report. As the Freedom of Information applicant, Opposition shadow industry spokesman, Martin Hamilton-Smith says:

"Some of these bridges were rated by engineers as `poor' because they have specific faults, including construction joint concerns, cracking, missing bolts, pavement bleeding, chipping, girders with shear cracks, faulty piers, corroded pedestrian barriers and corroded bearings. "It's a disgrace. It is in the public interest for this information to be out in the open. "There is no credible excuse for the Government to cover up and to keep the truth secret."

 South Australians have been assured by the Department: "There are no bridges in South Australia that are unsafe." But I'm sure they'll now be keeping an eye out for the arrival of the bridge maintenance team.

Nine words have powerful effect on Ombudsman

NSW Ombudsman Bruce Barbour has followed up with a special report to Parliament Removing nine words - Legal professional privilege and the NSW Ombudsman , his so far futile attempts and those of a parliamentary committee to have removed unique limitations in legislation that give an agency power to refuse his office access to information on this ground in the course of an investigation. The report includes case studies on problems encountered with the RTA, the Board of Studies and an unnamed local council during the course of an  Ombudsman investigation into the handling of Freedom of Information applications. The attitude in some cases was the agency claimed privilege and refused to provide the Ombudsman with information for the simple reason it could.

That's probably the situation with many FOI refusals on legal privilege grounds as well. Come 1 July and the commencement of the GIPA act, legal privilege will be a conclusive public interest factor against disclosure-no other test is required-although the agency must in each case give consideration to waiving privilege. The claim of privilege will be reviewable but not the refusal to waive. The Information Commissioner will not be as constrained as the Ombudsman in accessing information in the course of an investigation.

Legal privilege should not stand in Ombudsman's way

NSW Ombudsman Bruce Barbour

Sean Nichols cracked the front page with "Labor shuts off access to secrets" in the Sydney Morning Herald on Friday and the paper follows today with an editorial "The watchdog barks back" about an issue the NSW Ombudsman has raised with the government for years without success: the limitation in the Ombudsman's general powers of investigation on access to an agency's documents that are claimed subject to legal privilege. The Ombudsman and the Parliamentary Committee that oversights the office have got nowhere on this with the Ombudsman citing a series of unhelpful fob offs from the Department of Premier and Cabinet, over the last two and a half years. 

The Ombudsman has a point about what is a unique NSW limitation on ombudsman powers (section 21 of the Ombudsman Act)  and the lack of consistency in NSW where such a limitation does not apply to other investigatory bodies such as the Police Integrity Commission and the Independent Commission Against Corruption. However NSW is not the only jurisdiction with a consistency problem.This was a key element in an Australian Law Reform Commission 2008 Report on privilege and investigations. The report, which lends support to the NSW Ombudsman's argument, is yet to be acted upon by the Federal Government.

FOI reform record fails to score a mention in NSW leaders debate

The NSW leaders televised debate on Friday saw Premier Keneally proclaim her pride in leading the Labor government despite its current public standing and record, and Opposition leader O'Farrell  making much of his  five priorities  which include a number of commitments to make government more accountable, including an independent audit of the state's finances, and commitments on election financing and donations, lobbyist regulation, Freedom of Information and the ICAC.

On one of the rare occasions transparency came up directly O'Farrell for a moment tried to defend the indefensible-Opposition support for an offence provision where a newspaper or magazine publishes information that reformats and uses publicly available information on the My school website - before stating he was prepared to look at other responses. The Premier made short work on him on this one.

The Opposition's policy statement "Reform Freedom of Information laws and establish an Open Government Commissioner" released on Friday is reproduced below because some of you will want to avoid a hard to get rid of pop-up designed to get you to subscribe.

In promising overhaul of the FOI act and open government changes including an Open Government Commissioner in the Ombudsman's Office, no cost applications  and enforced publication of grants, you would be forgiven for thinking the Opposition missed last year's reform process and the passage through Parliament of the replacement for FOI, the Government Information (Public Access) Act (yet to commence), and the creation of the yet to be filled position of Information Commissioner. I'm sure they were there but not a mention. Then again the Premier didn't think her predecessor's initiative in pushing these changes through Parliament was worth bragging about during the debate either. 

The Opposition policy statement:

The community has the right to openness, accountability and transparency when it comes to government decision-making and information. Community scrutiny of government – including through increased access to government information – both protects the public interest and propels better public sector decision-making and performance. In government the NSW Liberals & Nationals will pursue a new era of open government.

 This will include reforming the Freedom of Information (FOI) process based on the following basic principles and initiatives:

• - pro-active disclosure of government information;
• - one-stop online shop for information from all government agencies;
• - enforced public disclosure of government contracts and grants; and
• - no cost for FOI applications and the establishment of mandatory deadlines.

We will also appoint a fully independent Open Government Commissioner within the Office of the NSW Ombudsman who will:

• - play an independent ‘watchdog’ role and drive the information-sharing performance of Government agencies toward the highest standards of openness, accountability and transparency;
• - provide citizens with advice and hear complaints on FOI and other government information matters; and
• - report annually on the government’s overall performance and on the comparative performance of government agencies, including total number of requests, number of requests complied with, turnaround times, number of complaints and number of complaints upheld or denied.

The people of NSW deserve open government.

 Amen to that.

Happy Australia Day

Congratulations to all Australia Day Award recipients. I didn't see anyone singled out specifically for contributions to open government, Freedom of Information or privacy protection - let me know if I missed any - but particular congratulations to the Ombudsman Professor John McMillan, Officer, Order of Australia:

"For service to the law as the Commonwealth Ombudsman, particularly in the areas of immigration and law enforcement, through leadership roles in professional bodies and as an academic."

Professor McMillan was a prominent advocate for FOI in Australia way back in the 70's and has been involved in and around this area of public law in various capacities ever since.

McKinnon High Court challenge documents released; still trouble elsewhere

Special Minister of State Senator Ludwig made sure the public were informed that Treasury documents the subject of the ministerial certificate that prompted an unsuccessful High Court challenge in 2006 had now been released by that department, in the first instance that has come to light of a new application for documents previously covered by a certificate, following legislative removal of the power to issue them.(I know these things happen but as of today the link to the Minister's Media statement 52/2009, says the page, ahem, can't be found.  is now working just fine.)

You can read this report by Andrew Fraser in The Weekend Australian. As to what Michael McKinnon now with the Seven Network can make of the documents close to 7 years old on which a couple of million was spent to keep them from public view...

But no such public statement from the Minister about an Ombudsman finding that the practice of Federal agencies only starting the clock after they had decided whether to remit the application fee, in effect giving them double the 30 day processing time limit. Or any response to the Ombudsman's call to clarify guidelines without waiting for the legislative changes before the Parliament.

FOI and two Ombudsman

Annual reports released recently by the Commonwealth and South Australian Ombudsman both include information about Freedom of Information matters. Review of FOI complaints is part of a broad range of Ombudsman responsibilities. However as the reports reveal, FOI looms larger in the workload in SA.

The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman Professor John McMillan received over 45000 approaches and complaints in total during the year, just over 200 or less than 0.5%, concerning FOI matters. 50% of the FOI work involved three agencies- Centrelink, Immigration and the Child Support Agency. Most complaints were about delay, fees and charges and poorly explained decisions.The report comments about failures to assist applicants and too literal reading of applications, both giving rise to avoidable user dissatisfaction. FOI rates one page (116) in the report. Unlike coverage of most other investigatory functions there are no case studies.

South Australian Ombudsman Richard Bingham reports his office considered 2543 cases in total, including 221 or about 8%, and more than his Commonwealth counterpart, concerning FOI. (The total number of approaches to the Office are estimated at around 12000). The FOI chapter of the report runs to 24 pages, consisting mainly of case studies and comments about matters investigated. These include an ongoing issue whether the Legal Practitioners Conduct Board is subject to the Act and whether Board documents attract legal professional privilege (an issue before the District Court); the status of information about contractual arrangements and work performance of a former chief executive of a rural health service; commercial in confidence information held by the Department of Health (also before the District Court); and several cases involving the Cabinet documents exemption including the Ombudsman's observation that Clause 1(1)(e) which exempts information concerning any deliberation or decision of Cabinet is too widely drawn. On this the Ombudsman says:

As a final comment, I note that interstate and Commonwealth FOI legislation apart from NSW, does not have such a broad exemption as clause 1(1)(e). I consider that an exemption worded to exempt access to documents revealing rather than concerning a decision or deliberation of Cabinet would be more appropriate, and would protect Cabinet confidentiality and also conform to the objectives of the FOI.

The NSW Government Information (Public Access) Act to commence early in 2010 contains a presumption of an overriding public interest against disclosure of a document prepared after a Cabinet deliberation or decision that would "reveal or tend to reveal information concerning any of those deliberations or decisions" (Clause 1 Schedule1). This is an improvement on Clause 1(1)(e) in Schedule 1 of the FOI Act. The exemption for disclosure of information concerning any deliberation or decision of Cabinet was interpreted by the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal as broad enough to cover a document that predated cabinet consideration of a matter, something the new formulation would rule out.

Marginal seat impacts not a matter for public service advice

I have no idea about the merits or otherwise of a $450 million NSW Government investment in the Tillega dam in the Hunter Valley, now subject to a Legislative Council inquiry. But the Sydney Morning Herald report of disclosure of documents including a draft briefing note to the Minister from the principal policy officer in the Department of Water and Energy, confirms other anecdotal evidence that the distinction between policy and political advice in the NSW system is long gone. And of the absence of clear professional standards to be observed by the public service in carrying out their duties. The briefing note from a senior public servant included this comment:

''Newcastle is a marginal seat after the last election and many of the people I talk to would vote for an independent who opposed the dam. I can't see what political benefit there is to the Government in the dam.''

Beyond the station of an apolitical, professional public service to my mind. And a bit like like the following disclosure in the Ombudsman's Annual report concerning the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority's Freedom of Information practices - now said to have stopped:

"Our investigation revealed that the RTA had a longstanding practice of sending draft FOI determinations to the Minister’s office and then waiting for their endorsement. RTA staff felt unable to finalise applications without this endorsement. They were also not inclined to make determinations that might be contrary to the views they understood the Minister’s office to hold, whether or not those views were directly communicated by the Minister’s staff or indirectly intimated....

The appropriateness of involving the Minister’s office in agency FOI applications is of relevance to the entire public sector. For this reason, we recommended that the Department of Premier and Cabinet develop a Code of Conduct to clarify the role and relationship of a Minister’s staff with agency staff. A draft Code of Conduct has been prepared, but not yet finalised.'

NSW Ombudsman sees a glimmer, but big job ahead.

The Annual Report of the NSW Ombudsman released yesterday has plenty to say about the public service, including a concern that "(t)oo many public servants think integrity is an old-fashioned, optional concept." The report on the Ombudsman's work on Freedom of Information starts at page 95. Not all grim news. Complaints about FOI matters down about 10% including a decrease of 50% in July 2009.

" In our view, this trend may be attributable to greater openness by agencies following the Premier’s statements of support for a review of the FOI Act and issuing of a memorandum in October 2008 encouraging proactive release of information by government agencies. Another likely reason for the decrease is that the NSW Police Force has substantially reduced their backlog of FOI applications, which has in turn reduced the number of complaints we received about delays in determining FOI applications."

However complaints from third parties objecting to disclosure of documents were up, and the shift in gears appears to mostly be with respect to matters that are more straightforward.

"The largest drop in complaints has been mainly those about delays and less contentious or clear cut merit decisions. We are still finding that agencies are reluctant to release documents which may be embarrassing or reveal matters of maladministration or failure to take appropriate action. Consequently, complaints which disclose broader issues of maladministration have increased in both number and complexity and have taken up considerable resources."

The report provides detail of investigations into the Roads and Traffic Authority, open disclosure practices in two Area Health Services, the Board of Studies and the University of Newcastle that illustrate failure to fully and properly implement the law.

With this report The Ombudsman is moving out of direct involvement after 20 years of dealing with FOI complaints, with the Information Commissioner to take over as the Government Information (Public Access) Act comes into force in 2010. The Ombudsman says the Office will be watching what flows in practice from its important catalyst for change, the own-motion review of the FOI Act in February this year, and for broader instances of maladministration.

The Ombudsman Bruce Barbour and his predecessors since 1989 all deserve congratulations for standing up for the right to know when few others did during much of this time, and long-time staff members Deputy Ombudsman Chris Wheeler and Wayne Kosh who have been working on these matters for all that time deserve a special mention.

The Ombudsman also had a few words yesterday to say about a "don't give it to me in writing" request for advice that surfaced in a parliamentary inquiry into the Department of Planning.

On with the culture change.

Taxi audit hailed down

www.abc.net.au

The Sydney Morning Herald has been on the job for several weeks about the NSW taxi industry, and today reports on a 2007 audit released yesterday, after unsuccessful attempts to obtain it under the Freedom of Information Act, and the commencement of an Ombudsman investigation, at the Herald's behest, into the handling of the matter. The audit reveals breaches of conditions of a special license category, resulting in substantial profits for some key industry players and was made public by the Minister for Transport as part of an announcement of major reforms to taxi licensing. No sign so far of the report online on the Minister's Media Release website. Update- thanks for the comment- the Report is here.

"People,not laws block freedom of information"

Matthew Moore in the Sydney Morning Herald gives the recent NSW Deputy Ombudsman's report on the Board of Studies a going over, citing it as providing a "standout example of what is wrong with freedom of information in NSW". The title as above, says it all, although the law does play a part. Moore concludes:

"It was precisely the behaviour of agencies such as Office of the Board of Studies that prompted the Parliament to pass a new freedom-of-information law, the Government Information (Public Access) Act. This act, which comes into force early next year, will be overseen by an Information Commissioner. There is much to like about the new law, especially the principle that all government information is to be made public unless there is an overriding public interest against disclosure. But as the Ombudsman's investigation shows so clearly, it is not the law that will make a difference; it is the attitudes of people who administer it, the Board of Studies bosses and a hundred other agencies. Unless their attitudes change there will be no improvement.."