Tuesday, 20 June 2023

Committees

Integrity and Oversight Committee

Reference

Debate resumed.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (14:47): Just to continue where I left off – to close out, I should say, on this matter – we know that there has been an overdependence on formal access requests rather than exploring options to provide access to information proactively and informally, hence the imperative for the changes that are proposed and also the imperative for this review, in particular when we are looking at the issue of personal documents because we know that on average personal requests represented almost 70 per cent of total requests since 2014. Again, I put on the record that we do have to have perspective when it comes to the very statistics that reflect the nature of FOI processes in Victoria. Individuals using FOI as the primary mechanism for accessing their own information is an inefficient use of their time and an inefficient use of government resources. Hence we can see that it is right and proper and timely that this review be undertaken, and I wholeheartedly support it going ahead.

Tim READ (Brunswick) (14:48): I am pleased to speak in support of this government motion to refer an inquiry into the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to the Integrity and Oversight Committee. This is a much-needed inquiry with well drafted, comprehensive terms of reference. I am pleased because it has been a long time between drinks when it comes to implementing integrity reforms in Victoria, including anything related to FOI. It was in fact back in 2017 that the government amended the FOI act to establish the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner – OVIC – to integrate freedom of information, privacy and data protection oversight into a single body. This was a positive if somewhat belated reform in that it emulated the kind of information oversight regimes that were already operating in other Australian jurisdictions.

Along with that bill the Andrews Labor government also made some accompanying promises about their further FOI reform agenda, and I quote from the second-reading speech in 2016:

These reforms are only the first stage in improving openness and access to information. Victoria needs modern information access legislation that supports the public’s right to information while ensuring public records and certain types of information remain protected. As such, the government is commissioning an independent root and branch review of Victoria’s FOI and public records legislation. The review will consult broadly across the public, private and non-government sectors to develop a revised framework for FOI and public records legislation, and the review is expected to be completed in March 2017.

This second-reading speech also spoke of:

… driving the cultural shifts necessary to improve the way government manages and provides access to information.

Unfortunately this legislation, rather than being the first step, proved to be the only step the government took back then to reform FOI. Indeed I am not even sure that this promised wideranging root-and-branch review of Victoria’s FOI legislation was actually ever commissioned. The parliamentary library could not find it, and OVIC themselves stated that they were not aware if it was ever conducted, so I cannot talk of any further FOI reforms under this government. What I can comment on is what has happened, because the Andrews government since 2016 has driven a cultural shift in the way government manages and provides access to information, but sadly, not in a positive way. Journalist Sumeyya Ilanbey, who covered state politics for the Age over much of this period, eloquently described in her final column what she witnessed under Andrews’s watch as a withering of democracy – that is, rather than the government improving public access to information, since 2016 government information has been progressively centralised and tightly controlled through the Premier’s office, which has itself grown exponentially.

Rather than continuing the centuries-old Westminster concept of government that is accountable to Parliament, we have seen more ministers become increasingly timid to give a frank answer to the most rudimentary questions relating to their portfolios. We have witnessed important letters from public agencies intended for all parliamentarians not being passed on. We have seen independent reports and findings from our parliamentary committees being edited by the Premier’s private office. We have seen the government fighting the release of even the most prosaic of public interest documents through our highest courts at taxpayers expense. I will just remind you that the second-reading speech in 2017 from the government spoke of driving the cultural shifts necessary to improve the way government manages and provides access to information, and yet we are seeing – even in this chamber, which is empirically the least democratic of all in Australia – the ability to debate and review legislation in detail curtailed and abolished.

We have seen the government defying orders in the other place to produce documents, and we continue to see independent agencies, eminent jurists, public servants and journalists belittled and gaslit because they have the temerity to do their jobs and critique government policy. It is this culture of suppression and centralised control of information – this withering of democracy – that I believe has meant Victorians have had to turn to FOI as the only recourse for public interest information. It should be little surprise that Victorians, so starved of anything other than Premier’s private office talking points, make more FOI requests than any other jurisdiction, including the federal one. But our FOI system is, to put it kindly, dysfunctional. To quote a federal Greens colleague:

It’s freedom of information only for the bloody-minded, the well-resourced, or the fixated.

I suspect I am not the only current state MP that has, after multiple failed attempts, given up lodging FOI requests as an unjustifiable waste of time and money. A report from the Victorian Information Commissioner last year found, among other things, inadequate resourcing by agencies for FOI functions and a significantly greater use of section 25A(5) of the act to refuse FOI requests without identifying or processing any documents. I note funding for OVIC was also reduced in this budget, and I should comment that OVIC seems to have performed very well since its creation and has a very solid reputation in this space.

While the pandemic has exacerbated pre-existing FOI issues, I agree with the commissioner that the underlying problem is that the FOI act in its current form can no longer provide for the timely disclosure of information held by government. In fact the FOI act has not been able to achieve this for many years, so the Greens are committed to a rewrite of the act with greater emphasis on timeliness and a greater weighting towards transparency as part of comprehensive integrity reform – that is, we support what the Andrews government said it would do back in 2016. We support this referral to the Integrity and Oversight Committee as we believe this committee will finally be able to publish something like the root-and-branch review that was originally promised. As chair of that committee I look forward to this work in earnest, and again I commend the government for initiating this. And then who knows – we may even see the government actually implement some reforms to increase transparency.

Brad BATTIN (Berwick) (14:54): First and foremost, when we talk about open and honest and transparent governments and our democracy, one of the best things we have seen in a long time here at this Parliament – and it has taken a long time – is to have our galleries back open. I am sorry you had to sit through that for 15 minutes, I do apologise –

The SPEAKER: Through the Chair, member for Berwick.

Brad BATTIN: but it is very important that we do have people in the galleries so we are sure that we are held to be an open and honest Parliament as well as obviously for those in government. One of the things I looked at when I looked at this FOI discussion and the debate about going to committee is that some of the issues that need to be addressed can be addressed without even the change to what is going on here, because the current legislation has time frames for FOIs to be answered. As Shadow Minister for Police one of the things that is fundamental to holding the government to account when it comes to law and order in our state is a transparency system where we can make a freedom-of-information request and get a response in a respectful time. Currently we have got letters in our office, when we have applied for FOIs, from this government where they say the delays will be 36 weeks, 38 weeks and over 40 weeks. The previous FOI commissioner, in a meeting I had with him, specifically said that you cannot hold government to account if it takes that long to get a response in relation to freedom of information. That is not just disrespectful to any opposition but disrespectful to those in the community, because we are asking these questions and putting these FOIs in for a legitimate purpose.

One of those purposes here in Victoria at the moment is an FOI request in relation to vacancies that are currently on the police roster, as we have got an increase in crime here in our state. We have seen youth crime at record highs, the highest we have had in a decade. Aggravated burglary is at the highest rate we have had in a decade. We have got domestic violence assault at the highest rates we have had in a decade. One of the things that is important for the community to know is: where are those vacancies, and why have we got those vacancies? But this government refuses to release that data. I say most of it is because the Premier of the day does not trust his ministers. Every FOI request that is going through is going through such a process that effectively the Premier and his office and his private office have to sign off on these documents. It does not just go through a standard process to trust the minister to say this is what should be released under legislation and this is what should not be released; it then goes to the Premier to cast a political eye over it to see what damage will be done to the government if a document is released around the actual statistics or the numbers or the information that people are requesting. It is not just us; there are members in the community who are also putting in applications, and they are being told they have got to be delayed continuously.

I think we do need to review what the legislation says, but more importantly than the review, we actually need to ensure that the government is going to deliver on what that legislation says, because there is no use in us changing the legislation and sticking to the 30-day requirement that you have got at the moment when every minister, the Premier and his office continually ignore it or the government departments by order from the ministers continually ignore these deadlines. Every time they are ignored it is nearly impossible to hold a government to account, when the information is being tied up or redacted – information that should be available to the public.

We have seen from this government where a public document was put through the FOI process and that document was redacted to such a state that it had page numbers only and a title. What was ridiculous from the government was that they tried to hide everything in that document yet that was a public document; it was already in the public realm. The government have gone so far now that they get so worried about what is going to get out they physically try and hide everything. That is a government that is full of secrecy. That is a government that continues to hide the facts from the community. That is a government that in itself, by doing this, leads to corrupt behaviour in our state. When everything is now directed through one man – the Premier – and he does not trust his ministers, that will give him absolute power. That is what leads to corrupt governments.

I am very confident in the future that one day some of this information will come out, and when it does come out I am confident there are ministers who will be petrified of some of the information that will come through, because it will identify what we have been saying and confirm that there has been corruption under this government. They are so scared of putting documents out there for fear that not just us but the media will report on it and it will have a negative impact on many of them. So I say to the government, let us do a review, but make sure that you are going to abide by the outcomes of the review and abide by the legislation in place.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Chris Couzens): The Leader of the House has moved government business notice of motion 2 on the notice paper. The member for Brighton has moved an amendment to the motion, which is in the hands of members. The question is:

That such words be inserted.

Assembly divided on question:

Ayes (25): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Jess Wilson

Noes (57): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Gabrielle de Vietri, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Will Fowles, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Sam Hibbins, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Tim Read, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ellen Sandell, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Question defeated.

Motion agreed to.