Wednesday, 19 February 2025

 Tim READ (Brunswick) (10:33): Sometime soon I expect we will see the government’s response to the Integrity and Oversight Committee’s report recommending an overhaul of Victoria’s freedom-of-information laws. The IOC spent most of last year sifting through 69 often detailed submissions and hearing evidence during six days of public hearings to examine the many failings of our current FOI system and to consider alternatives. Our 40-year-old FOI system requires users to request information that is freely available, often, in other states. Victoria has about a thousand government agencies which are subject to FOI, and many of them, particularly hospitals and the police, are burdened by the sheer number of requests, which totalled in a recent year over 48,000 requests, mostly for personal information like medical records. FOI officers often have to consult third parties who have provided information before releasing it to the people who have requested it. The burden of that work, the poor state of many official records and the lack of alternative release pathways often leads to long delays, making that information unavailable when it is needed, such as for court cases.

Witnesses to the inquiry described a defensive culture within government agencies, a culture of delaying and withholding information. They told us that reforming the legislation will only be part of the solution. Departmental and agency leaderships must foster a new culture favouring transparency. FOI fees can also add up and act as a deterrent to those seeking information, so the committee recommends a new right-to-information system which releases information proactively.

Departmental and agency websites should contain much of the information that Victorians currently use FOI to obtain. Application fees should be abolished, and charges should be limited to just the cost of copying and delivering information. There should be a presumption of disclosure with limited exceptions, which should only apply if they protect a legitimate interest and if the harm caused by releasing the information would outweigh the public interest in doing so. Cabinet documents should only be exempt if they were prepared for the dominant purpose of submission to cabinet. Personally, I would prefer to see more cabinet documents released when in the public interest as is done in New Zealand and Queensland. Personal information should be available by an informal release mechanism. The administrative burden of redacting sensitive information obtained from a third party can be reduced or even eliminated by storing that information in a way that allows it to be quarantined. Some modern medical record systems allow this. People should not have to pay for their personal information, and fees should be limited to reasonable costs of copying and delivering information.

I would like to acknowledge the work of the secretariat and particularly thank Holly Brennan, who finished up recently, not just for her work on this report but also her impressive contribution to the work of the IOC. I thank the 69 individuals and organisations who made submissions, particularly the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner, and I thank my fellow committee members for their contributions as well.

With Donald Trump energising right-wing movements around the world, we need to protect democracy and its institutions more than we ever have. Maladministration thrives in secrecy, but open government allows public scrutiny to keep self-interest in check. We have no idea who will be in government in five or 10 years time, but we can legislate to ensure that they are subject to greater transparency. I look forward to a favourable government response to our recommendations and to legislative reform in this term of Parliament. Victorians should not have to battle with a freedom-of-information system that has a reputation for being impenetrable to obtain personal information or to obtain information that is in the public interest.