New Freedom of Information rules will deny the applicant any advantage in the game of cat and mouse

A cunning plan designed to neutralise the damage caused by Freedom of Information applications has been dressed up as extra democracy, extra accountability and extra accessibility.

IN A eureka moment Rowan Atkinson’s television character Blackadder once commented “I have come up with a plan so cunning you could stick a tail on it and call it a weasel’’.

And deep within the highly secretive and highly politicised section of the Department of Premier and Cabinet a similar moment seems to have arrived.

The policy code PC045 makes it sound far more sinister than those who dreamt it up would like or admit, so for the sake of debate and potentially exposing a weasel let’s call it PC045.

“Premier and Cabinet Circular PC045 Disclosure Logs for Non-personal Information Released Through Freedom of Information”, is the full title, and it purports to be an earnest effort by the State Government to be more open and honest.

So more “disclosure”, a “log” to go to for finding the information, protection of personal information; what’s not to like?

In brief, the policy states that instead of FOI applicants alone being given access to the documents they request, everyone will be given them and immediately via the internet. They will not be told who made the application, or for what purpose, and because of that it is in fact a highly effective and cunning tool. It is already used in other states to much outcry, to blunt attacks on the government by opposing politicians and the media.

So-called FOI began in Australia in 1991 legislating the rights of the public to ask for and be given information held by the government departments which wouldn’t exist without their taxes. Under various monikers the right is enshrined in every state and territory, although South Australia’s system was declared the worst in the nation recently by one academic study.

South Australian FOI rules have been changed to neutralise attacks on the government.

It is not a free pass for anyone trying to find out why a tower was approved next to their house, why a dodgy land deal did not go to tender, why the head of the Essential Services Commission resigned over government utility pricing policies, or why planners decided Mt Barker will double in size over the next ten years.

There are many, many exceptions in the legislation and enormous amounts of highly sensitive information will continue to the refused to the public despite PC045.

The policy will however, for applications lodged after October 1, mean a constant stream of perhaps a dozen releases daily on more than 20 web site “disclosure logs”. The documents will range from the latest bungle by a department to questions over policy decisions. The first release by the Department of Child Protection is about a social media advertising spend to attract foster carers.

What has changed for the worse from a public interest perspective is that previously the information was released to the applicant, which allowed them some ownership over that information — after paying sometimes thousands of dollars for the privilege. For the media this protected a scoop in the public interest and in their commercial interests.

For an Opposition MP it allowed them to ambush a government Minister in question time, or for a community group to expose the hidden agenda behind the latest development “blight” on their community.

Attorney-General John Rau, no friend of the rights of the media, argues the policy will enable information to be readily and freely accessible, will support transparency and accountability and the proactive release of information.

“It recognises that information held by Government is an important public resource and information released under FOI is likely to be of interest to a wider audience,’’ he argues without revealing the ulterior motives which The Advertiser has witnessed being discussed at the highest levels of government.

Attorney-General John Rau. Picture: Brenton Edwards/AAP

Manipulation of the FOI process by those who oppose disclosure, and now would have you believe they support it through PC045, is not new. In fact it is widespread.

At its peak before the Ombudsman investigated this misuse in 2014 political interference had become rife, his office finding: “While the Act permits a Minister to direct their agency’s determination, evidence provided to the audit strongly suggests that ministerial or political influence is brought to bear on agencies’ FOI officers, and that FOI officers may have been pressured to change their determinations in particular instances’’.

It was only the tip, but perhaps the worst of the iceberg. There are other problems. In one department the head of the media section also became one it its FOI officers, some departments routinely fail to respond to applicants and SA Health has a policy of not even telling them they will not be responding. The Attorney-General’s own department lists documents which can be applied for using the Act only to refuse access when they are.

Some agencies are worse than others. The Onkaparinga Council spent $120,000 taking one local resident to court to stop the release of a bungled sewage leak at Sellicks Beach. In one instance SAPOL officers arrived to tell the democratically elected MLC that it was not happy with his application and didn’t want any more applications made to the department.

Under PC045 exclusivity and political advantage will now be completely neutralised by the ability of the government of the day to empower keyboard warriors who will spin a friendly version of events for the audience.

Ministerial press secretaries have been known to release documents to friendly journalists or those with the smallest audience to minimise damage. This process has now become legitimised and institutionalised. The keyboards of their minions may melt under the strain. The State Government expects around eight releases every day based on previous years.

FOI will within years cease to exist as we know it, a powerful and opportunistic tool with which to expose the failings of the government of the day.

Some will stand against the attack on democracy, for example community groups opposing a development. FOI will survive in its purest endeavour, but applicants will become the highly motivated and altruistic.