Pages

Monday, March 04, 2013

Queensland RTI charts unprompted new territory

Right to Information changes including new Disclosure log requirements came into effect in Queensland on 22 February with the commencement of the Right to Information and Integrity (Openness and Transparency (Amendment) Act 2012.

Two aspects are unique in Australia. Where they came from and why is unknown. They  bobbed up in a bill introduced in a hurry in the Queensland parliament late last year.


An RTI applicant must now reveal whether access is being sought "for the benefit of, or use of the document, by the applicant or another entity". Where access is sought for the benefit or use of another entity, the access applicant is required to name that other entity.

And after a valid application has been received and before any decision on disclosure is made, details of the information being sought and the date of the application must be included on the Disclosure Log. 

Neither gets a mention in all the various ideas put to the Hawke review in Canberra on how to improve the operation of the Federal government's freedom of information act.

In addition to those innovations the amendment scraps the previously available 24 hour minimum exclusive use period for information released to an applicant before it is posted on the disclosure log. The new formulation requires released documents to be posted on the disclosure log "as soon as practicable" after release to the applicant. 

If an applicant fails to access a released document within 40 business days, details identifying the document, information about the way in which it may be accessed and any applicable charge must now be included in a disclosure log as soon as practicable after the access period ends.

Exclusive use
The removal of the exclusive use period in Queensland came as media organisations in their joint submission to the Hawke review argue again for a five days exclusive use period when documents are released to a journalist in response to a Federal government FOI application. At present infomation is required to be posted within 10 days. Journalists contrast some agencies such as Treasury that have a same day release policy and Defence and Customs that in the absence of a legislative requirement give journalists an exclusive use period.

I’ve not heard any fuss from journalists about this issue in NSW where there is no statutory time provision for posting released information on the Disclosure log. Maybe the bigger pool of potential competitors on the national scene makes the difference. It has always been open to a minister/agency to release information publicly after an RTI/FOI application for that information has been received and that has certainly happened. In NSW, sensibly no GIPA charge applies in these circumstances.  

It seems reasonable to allow some exclusive time with released information. Perhaps any applicant - not just a journalist - should be able to ask for a few days exclusive use at the time of making the request, with that elective to bind the agency?

Those of us using Righttoknow aren't concerned that others know what we are seeking And sharing the spoils from the moment we succeed.


As soon as practicable after a valid access application[3] is made to a department or Minister, the department or Minister must include the following information in its disclosure log:
  • details of the information being sought by the applicant, as stated in the application; and
  • the date the application was made.[4]
Departments and Ministers publishing details of information being sought by the applicant must first review the information and delete information where required under section 78B.
- See more at: http://www.oic.qld.gov.au/information-and-resources/guidelines/guidelines-access-and-amendment/disclosure-logs-departments-and-ministers#sthash.sEqyw7Vg.dpuf
As soon as practicable after a valid access application[3] is made to a department or Minister, the department or Minister must include the following information in its disclosure log:
  • details of the information being sought by the applicant, as stated in the application; and
  • the date the application was made.[4]
Departments and Ministers publishing details of information being sought by the applicant must first review the information and delete information where required under section 78B.
- See more at: http://www.oic.qld.gov.au/information-and-resources/guidelines/guidelines-access-and-amendment/disclosure-logs-departments-and-ministers#sthash.sEqyw7Vg.dpuf
As soon as practicable after a valid access application[3] is made to a department or Minister, the department or Minister must include the following information in its disclosure log:
  • details of the information being sought by the applicant, as stated in the application; and
  • the date the application was made.[4]
Departments and Ministers publishing details of information being sought by the applicant must first review the information and delete information where required under section 78B.
- See more at: http://www.oic.qld.gov.au/information-and-resources/guidelines/guidelines-access-and-amendment/disclosure-logs-departments-and-ministers#sthash.sEqyw7Vg.dpuf
As soon as practicable after a valid access application[3] is made to a department or Minister, the department or Minister must include the following information in its disclosure log:
  • details of the information being sought by the applicant, as stated in the application; and
  • the date the application was made.[4]
Departments and Ministers publishing details of information being sought by the applicant must first review the information and delete information where required under section 78B.
- See more at: http://www.oic.qld.gov.au/information-and-resources/guidelines/guidelines-access-and-amendment/disclosure-logs-departments-and-ministers#sthash.sEqyw7Vg.dpuf

1 comment:

  1. These Reasons may well have something to do with establishing the use of the information in the new amendments:

    for the applicant, the applications are a means of achieving an end, that is causing inconvenience and annoyance and as a means of ‘wearing down’ officers and to gain advantage in her ongoing disputation with that unit; and

    the applicant is using her right of access under the RTI Act as a ‘weapon’ against the Respondents rather than for the legitimate purpose of accessing government information.

    Who knows their reasoning at this time

    ReplyDelete