Wednesday, 18 June 2025

Integrity and Oversight Committee

Inquiry into the Operation of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic)

Rachel WESTAWAY (Prahran) (10:36): I rise to address this chamber about the committee report on the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic) prepared by the Integrity and Oversight Committee and what it means to the people of Prahran and the people of Victoria. From the outset I would like to thank the committee members for their work in investigating the issues that this act underpins.

The Freedom of Information Act is often referred to as the sunshine legislation, and it provides integrity to all levels of our government and government departments and agencies with the intention of allowing my constituents in Prahran and all Victorians the opportunity to have faith in the decisions that are made on their behalf and confidence in the information that is stored on them. As a former assistant commissioner for freedom of information in Victoria I was responsible for matters being appealed – that is, decisions that applicants were not happy with. This goes to the very core of what the committee report was all about. A review was well overdue, and reforms were desperately needed.

As the recently elected member for Prahran I have had numerous constituents exasperated by the delays experienced in obtaining information from government departments and agencies. These decisions can relate to planning developments, and they can relate to police and hospital records, recruitment into departments and agencies and general decisions across the board. It serves to give confidence to the general public. The report refers to ‘pull FOI’, meaning applicants must pull for the information they want from an agency, and this in itself requires patience and resilience. It should not be that hard; that was never the intention of the act. Further still, if an applicant is not happy with the result that they have received, then they have a right to review from a toothless tiger, in essence, and the same delays and resistance is experienced by the review body and applicant yet again.

The report recommends terminology changes to reflect the frustrations experienced by all and speaks to ‘push FOI’ – that is, push of information to the applicant – and it is a worthy concept, but there has to be will in regard to this. FOI officers must be there, supported and trained, and department and agency staff must be supported and trained as to what this actually means. It also means that they must turn their mind to being vigilant in all forms of communication, not to hide potentially problematic material but to actually ensure professionalism at all times in their communication, because it is my hope that the recommendations in this report are adopted.

I would like to take the chamber through a few examples of how important FOI is to our constituents. In my former role I had a young person who, through their psychologist, after years of sexual abuse as an infant and as a teenager, was told that FOI-ing information on their abuser may enable them to find comfort in obtaining police reports on their abuse. The abuser was found guilty and ended their life prior to sentencing, and little could be released regarding the information because the person that was the abuser was also protected in regard to their private information. The frustration for the person who was the applicant was doubled. There is little more I can tell you about the matter other than to say that the abuse was horrendous and I wish I could have absolutely done more.

Another case was of an applicant admitted to a psych ward who wanted their medical reports. The family member who reported them and had them admitted rightly had their identity hidden, a necessity to safeguard and give confidence to those who try to do their best but do not want the possible repercussions to follow should the applicant be able to identify them and take retribution.

I saw numerous local government requests regarding planning developments where photos of neighbours’ properties were exempt from disclosure as it was their private property, and this in most circumstances just seemed ludicrous. I saw other applications for review that had accused applicants requesting material on police surveillance. Releasing this information would undermine the integrity of an operation.

Often the material before our FOI staff was voluminous, hence the delays in releasing it. Some people wait over a year for the material. This hardly provides confidence in the release system. The FOI act is out of date, and the material people can request simply is not covered to the degree it should be. CCTV footage, for one, was often problematic as it displayed other people that should be deleted from the footage. This recommendation allows for this, but how one redacts exempt information still remains time consuming and problematic. With social media so prevalent, often material not able to be released under the act was already in the general public sphere. Applicants would become irate when they learned of this, with their faith in the system further diminished.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Paul Hamer): Order! The time for making statements has now ended.