Come clean on RTI system
IT is welcome news that the Ombudsman’s office has rebuked state government departments over their handing of right to information requests. The office has taken issue with the way documents have been edited and the methods used to redact sensitive details.
In particular it examined complaints from the Tasmanian Greens that one response to an RTI request had been returned in a single, edited file. The office found that if documents exist, a copy of those documents, with the redacted areas shown, should be included. This is important because it allows those seeking information to see the context of where details have been hidden.
The other criticism was over the use of white to redact information. It said departments should never use white as a way of obscuring information.
“White could appear as if information never existed there in the first place … thereby avoiding proper scrutiny,” the office said.
It is a positive step that the Ombudsman is taking a closer interest in the RTI treatment. But he simply shouldn’t have to.
Attorney-General Elise Archer yesterday responded to criticism from the Greens of the RTI process, saying it was a shame they continued to attack “apolitical staff of the Government who work in the public service” who make decisions “independent of ministers and at arm’s length”.
The problem with the system as it stands is that the default position by staff assessing RTI requests is to keep information hidden from the public. But as noted here before, having a bureaucracy that is habitually secretive undermines democracy itself.
Earlier this year the Mercury highlighted the ridiculous lengths to which departments go to keep details hidden from taxpayers. An officer redacted details from an RTI request for details about former Police Minister Rene Hidding’s superannuation payout at the end of his political career.
Not only did the department keep the amounts hidden, it redacted dates from Mr Hidding’s career, facts easily obtainable on the parliamentary website.
The Mercury requested a review and yesterday that internal review revealed details previously kept hidden — namely Mr Hidding’s final average salary ($177, 212) and the dates he held certain offices. These extra facts allow us to work out the final sum based on a set calculation, making his final payout $1.24 million. That figure is pretty much bang on what we had calculated previously.
Political parties love saying they’re all in favour of openness and transparency — when they’re in opposition. Governments have to say they like it, but they don’t.
One innovation of the Liberals is to publish all successful RTIs on the internet — something that looks like openness, but forces journalists to publish in a rush and blunts the effectiveness of question time surprises. They have also let the period for appeals blow out, although recent funding increases for the ombudsman’s office are intended to address this.
Responsibility for all editorial comment is taken by the Editor, Chris Jones, Level 1, 2 Salamanca Square, Hobart, TAS, 7000
POLITICAL PARTIES LOVE SAYING THEY’RE ALL IN FAVOUR OF OPENNESS AND TRANSPARENCY — WHEN THEY’RE IN OPPOSITION. GOVERNMENTS HAVE TO SAY THEY LIKE IT, BUT THEY DON’T