SA’s ‘pre-internet’ information laws in need of secrecy overhaul

MINISTERS and department bosses interfering with the release of public information could soon be fined under new draft rules by the SA Ombudsman.

South Australian Ombudsman Wayne Lines. Picture: Tait Schmaal

MINISTERS would be fined for meddling with information requests and Cabinet papers would become public after just 30 days under plans advocated by the state’s public sector watchdog.

Ombudsman Wayne Lines is proposing an overhaul of laws underpinning freedom of information in SA.

In recent years, documents released through the FOI process have revealed a raft of information in the public interest, including the ineffectiveness of 3am lockout laws, a police shortage in the APY Lands, extraordinary levels of credit card expenditure at Onkaparinga council and the state’s repeat domestic violence perpetrators.

But Mr Lines has described the current system as costly, pre-internet and generations behind much of the country.

Six months after Mr Lines told The Advertiser the new Liberal Government needed to address the state’s FOI rules, the watchdog has been given the blessing of the Attorney-General Vickie Chapman to put forward his ideas.

Ms Chapman told The Advertiser the Government was conducting a holistic review of the Freedom of Information Act.

“The Ombudsman’s suggestions will of course be considered as part of that review,” she said.

Mr Lines said the scheme needs to be designed around the whole freedom of information application process being a last resort.

“Freedom of information officers need to be empowered to actually release documents, even if they are exempt,” he said.

“They need to have discretionary power so they could look at requests and say ‘what harm is going to happen if this document is released?’

The revelation comes as The Advertiser launches its first Right to Know Week that will highlight secrecy across all levels of government.

In a South Australian first, The Advertiser will this week launch an easy-to-use online database of every state and federal MP.

Readers will be able to search what they own, their sources of income and gifts they have received.

In an exclusive interview with The Advertiser, Mr Lines has outlined a raft of changes he believes necessary to bring SA in line with other states, including:

RELAXING rules around the release of CCTV footage.

APPOINTING an Information Commissioner tasked with overseeing and promoting the release of information to the public.

STRENGTHENING the powers of the Ombudsman’s office so that he could compel offices and agencies to release information when he says it should be.

COMPELLING offices and agencies to provide him with contentious information so that he can review it.

EMPOWERING freedom of information officers to use discretion to release information they deem to be in the public interest.

GIVING his office investigative powers if a minister’s office denies the existence of requested documents.

Mr Lines believes ministers or the heads of government agencies that interfere in the release of information should be named, shamed and fined.

Last year, Mr Lines dismissed concerns that staff working for government ministers would be put in danger if their titles and job descriptions were released to the public.

He called for the Weatherill Government to release the names and job descriptions of staff in ministerial offices, rejecting claims it would be too “dangerous” to do so.

“Government ministers appear to be mindful that they don’t interfere, but it does happen occasionally and we need to make sure that it doesn’t happen,” he said.

In South Australia, Cabinet papers that outline decisions made in meetings are only released after 10 years, on request.

Mr Lines said Cabinet papers should be released after just 30 days, as they are in New Zealand, where ministers are asked when they sign any document if they also authorise its release.

If the same rule was applied to SA, the State Government would have had to release the details of drug cheat Lance Armstrong’s visit to SA for the Tour Down Under almost immediately instead of 2019, 10 years later. “They have to turn their minds to whether this should be disclosed to the public,” he said.

“If they have got a good process in their decision making, and it is evidence based and it is not biased or influenced by personal factors, then they have got nothing to hide.

“And it would just benefit the public enormously to have more of an insight into how decisions are made and what government is trying to achieve.”

Mr Lines said SA, once a leader in FOI had fallen behind. “We would be in the lower tier,” he said.

“We are way behind the eastern states and New Zealand. We were in the first generation back in the 1990s — one of the first states to have FOI.

“But since then there has been two other generational changes to FOI, but we are still in on the first generation.

“Our Act does not include for electronic application — it has to be posted. It is like it was before the internet.”

Australian Ombudsman Wayne Lines pictured in Adelaide. Picture: Tait Schmaal

Ombudsman Wayne Lines on …

CCTV

“There are more and more requests for access to CCTV footage and the response from the departments is that this is resource intensive, to pixilate irrelevant or incidental people that are on the footage. Pixilation technology is getting better and cheaper and it is more user friendly. The Government needs to make its mind whether it regards members of the public walking down Rundle Mall as personal information or not.”

RELEASING PERSONAL INFORMATION

“The Government is now obtaining a huge amount of personal information and there
are huge requests for that information (like speeding infringements, contact with government agencies) to be released to the individuals.
It will need to look at becoming more clever at how it makes that personal information available.”

THE NEW GOVERNMENT

“The push model is about anticipating what people are really interested in and putting it out there on there websites in a way that is accessible to them without having to involve the personnel of the department to find it for them.”

SECRET AGENCIES

“There should be the obligation to provide (contentious) documents to me when I receive an external review application. Sometimes they won’t release the information to me to review, because they are covered by their secrecy provisions. I just need to look at them to see the content of them to satisfy myself that they are actually covered by the secrecy provision — they have no obligation to do that at the moment.”

COSTS

“I think the costs should be a minimal as possible. Access to information is part and parcel about what government is about.”

MISSING DOCUMENTS

“If a minister’s office says they don’t have the documents I can’t review it under the FOI Act … and I can’t investigate under the Ombudsman Act, because ministers are not covered under the Ombudsman’s Act. Ministers have a free hit there and that is not good for transparency.”

RELEASE OF OMBUDSMAN’S REPORTS

“Lacking in our legislation is an actual obligation, that once the determination has been made, that the documents must be released as soon as the appeal period has expired.”