called for intelligence agencies to be subject to freedom of information laws and has expressed concern about “mixed messages” on open government and transparency.Having recurrently highlighted the mixed messages coming from the Office of the Information Commissioner regarding access under the Freedom of Information Act to information held by that agency and by other agencies I am somewhat underwhelmed by Professor McMillan's enthusiasm for extending the Act.
The Guardian states that the Commissioner said intelligence agencies (the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australian Secret Intelligence Service and the Australian Signals Directorate) should be subject to FOI legislation.
“My preference would be at least for the FoI Act to apply to the intelligence agencies,” he said.
“I think the FoI Act can suitably apply to any agencies, parliamentary departments and the intelligence agencies. The exemptions are adequate to protect whatever has to be protected.” ...
McMillan added he was not confident changes would be made to freedom of information laws.
“I’m also realistic and do not put a lot of time into arguing that case because I think it unlikely in the near future that there’s going to be any change,” he said.The Commissioner is reported as stating that the Inspector General of Intelligence & Security (IGIS) is an effective oversight for intelligence agencies and expressed disappointment that both houses of the national parliament are now exempt from FOI.
“I see a lot of mixed signs and I hear a lot of mixed messages," he said. "I’ve no doubt that the 2010 reforms, in combination with the open data revolution, have substantially improved open government in Australia.
"But I was disappointed that the parliament amended the act to exclude the parliamentary departments before the Hawke report.
“My concern always is that in the middle ranks of agencies if they get conflicting messages we won’t get this strong commitment to open government that I think is important.”In seeking access to information held by the OAIC I have highlighted concerns that those "middle ranks" in looking at the OAIC's responses will get the message from the Commissioner's own staff that access actually isn't that important.
Sadly, if the OAIC is persistently resistant to providing access to information on matters of direct public concern it can expect other agencies to follow its lead.
The Guardian reports that
The commissioner also said the resources given to his office were not enough to deal with the increased caseload of freedom of information work, which meant agencies could be “gaming the system”. It now takes close to 200 days to allocate an application for information commissioner review.
He said: “I’m not going to name individual cases, but I have a great concern that agencies will say, ‘Let’s just deny it. The person can appeal to the OIC, it may take them a year or two to get around to it,’ in which case the sensitivity will go out of the issue.
"I accept that that happens at the moment. So there is gaming of the system going on.”As one peer said, "gaming the system, who'dathunkit".
