Even before the Government implements its so-called ‘FOI Reforms’, the red herrings are many. Rex Patrick is confounded.
On June 28, 1994, the late independent senator Brian Harradine successfully moved a motion in the Senate ordering ministers to table lists of files created by Commonwealth Departments. The motion passed. On May 30, 1996, the order was updated to apply to Agencies as well as Departments.
The order was of continuing effect. So, today, on every Government Department and Agency website you’ll find file lists of recently created files.
By way of example, here’s a link to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet’s file list (but you can enter a department/agency name into your search engine along with “Harradine order” or “Senate order” and you’ll find that department/agency’s list).
The purpose of the order was to make the Freedom of Information regime more genuinely workable; by enabling parliamentarians, media and the public to have some idea of what information exists and to target FOI access applications accordingly.
I concede that it’s mainly only transparency nerds like me who know of and use the ‘Harradine order’ file list. It has yielded some accountability results.
So, what’s the scam?
On Friday, almost simultaneously, I receive two responses relating to “Harradine order” FOI requests, one from PM&C and one from the Australian Submarine Agency.
The PM&C FOI application was related to a file called “FOI Reform”. I originally requested the file back in March 2023, but was advised in April 2023 that “no documents were identified within this file”. Too early, I thought. But when the FOI Amendment Bill was tabled in the Parliament in September, I thought I’d see what was in the file now. The response blew me away.
FOI
Sorry – refused – still no documents.
“The file is a digital folder that does not contain any documents. In addition, it has never contained any documents, consistent with the department’s response to your similar request … “
The Australian Submarine Agency FOI application was related to a filed called “South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Act 1986”. The title piqued my interest.
FOI
Sorry – refused – no documents.
The only explanation was:
The ASA file identified in the applicant’s scope was the subject of reasonable steps to locate any existing contents. No records were found to exist.
So, one can conclude the indexed file lists have gone from being FOI’er assisters to FOI’er distractors.
In response to the nil returns, I’ve made new requests for similar information not in those empty files. What an inefficiency!
Seriously it’s bureaucratic nonsense worthy of an episode of “Yes Minister”.
So, when Prime Minster Albanese stands up and says FOI is expensive, we can all chant back – stop officials asking every man, women and dog to contribute to an FOI decision, stop recklessly spending hundreds of thousands on secrecy fights, and stop publishing the names of empty files that waste FOI applicant’s and officials’ time.
Snowy 2.0 legal cost avalanche – more public money spent hushing more public information