Q&A: Australia's Information Commissioner, John McMillan

By John Hilvert on Nov 1, 2010 10:55 PM
Filed under Strategy

Page 1 of 2 | Single page

On FOI, privacy, reuse rights and not stepping on too many toes.

He is charged with convincing Federal Government agencies to make more information accessible, oversees a team of 85 information and privacy professionals, and knows not to tread on the Attorney General's toes. But who is Australia's new Information Commissioner, John McMillan? John Hilvert endeavours to find out.

iTnews: Who is the Office of the Information Commissioner and what have you set out to do?

John McMillan, Information Commissioner [JM]: We are launching a revitalised Freedom of Information Act which promises to provide people with information speedily at low cost.

But the second big change is emerging technology and open Government principles.

Technology places real pressures on Government in terms of how they interact with people and the expectations people have of Government. It's something of an unstoppable revolution.

Once you do things via technology, there is no turning back. Once you publish a red book (guide to new Government Ministers on their portfolio), everybody has to do it. So that's where we'll get a lot of activity - focusing on how Government will use technology innovatively for better records management and disclosure and publication online.

iTnews: Who will this drive this?

JM: It's being driven by a number of agencies: Finance, AGIMO [The Australian Government Information Management Office], the Department of Innovation. We're expecting to have a role in driving it. Just what our role is, is a little undefined, which is why we put out our issues paper to step into the arena and indicate we have a role to play in this space as well. Seventy percent of Government transactions with the public are online now. They are aiming for ninety percent.

That completely redefines Government does its business.

Once somebody is online they want an answer. They want it quickly. They don't want any messing around. They want to go beyond a simple dialogue and explore the options themselves.

The third big area is integrating FOI and Privacy rights. We take a different approach to the way information in Government is managed. There has long been a tension between FOI and privacy. There's no doubt privacy has been used as an excuse by agencies to prevent disclosure of information.

This is an opportunity to resolve that tension.

iTnews: Were all the FOI reforms sought passed in the new legislation?

JM: The initial proposals on fees was that journalist and non-Government groups would get the first five hours of decision-making time free and the others would get one.

There was a debate about whether someone was a journalist or not for the purposes of the Act. They resolved that by giving everybody FOI free for the first 5 hours. That was decided when the regulations were published Thursday, last week. It was as recent as that.

iTnews: What are the typical fees?

JM: There used to be an application fee of $30. That's gone. Decision-making time is $20 an hour as previously. But now the first five hours are free. Search and retrieval time is unchanged at $15 an hour. They give an estimate as well, usually.

The other thing about the charges provisions was the public interest waiver of charges between people and agencies.That will operate differently, because one of the new requirements is a disclosure log where an agency or Minister - within tendays of disclosing information under the FOI Act - has to publish it online or with a link or description from May 1 next year. There are exceptions for privacy or business.

It will be a lot easier to mount a public interest waiver argument. For example, some agencies have published their red book online - advice for an incoming Government - for free. (The "blue book" is if the Opposition gets in).

There have been FOI requests for that. Some agencies - Treasury and Finance have published theirs online. Some agencies have imposed an FOI fee for access. That was before the current Act came into force, though.

It will be interesting to see what happens now.

Q&A: Australia's Information Commissioner, John McMillan

John McMillan, Information Commissioner

5 comments in this discussion

"It sounds great and it is about time, hopefully this will make Government Accountability more transparent, from a General Public Point of View From recent experience and dealings with FOI and ..."

By frustration

Tags

information commissioner, oic, john mcmillan, foi, egov

Slow progress on Government's open data effort

Govt remains secretive on $80k procurement threshold

Feds eye FOI cutbacks

Technology drives FOI reform proposal

Breaking Stories

Mater CIO shows QLD Health 'how it's done'

QLD Transport to replace 'cumbersome' data search

Melbourne firies use drone to check dangling truck

DNS DDoS attacks skyrocket

Photos: Toshiba's 2013 laptops

Readers of this article also read...

Comments: 5

anonymous Nov 2, 2010 1:02 PM	This sounds good, but there are a couple of questions: What is to stop governments doing things they have always done to avoid scrutiny, such as carting a load of documents through the cabinet room so they can be labelled "Cabinet in Confidence - not to be released"? Why are separate red/blue books produced to provide different advice to government and opposition?
pragmatic45 Nov 2, 2010 3:54 PM	Different books are required because there are competing sets of policies taken to the election. Each book assumes a different set of programs to be run or not.
anonymous Nov 2, 2010 5:05 PM	@pragmatic45 - Thanks, sounds logical. Now if only someone could answer the first question. . .
baljurda Nov 3, 2010 12:34 PM	I think you will find section 34 of the FOI Act prevents this happening.
frustration Feb 13, 2011 10:26 AM	It sounds great and it is about time, hopefully this will make Government Accountability more transparent, from a General Public Point of View From recent experience and dealings with FOI and Privacy it has been a battle. I have been attempting to have a Government Record corrected however each avenue that has been taken has led to another and to this day the Document still sits within Government Files. A particular Department has misused Financial Documentation that my Husband was directed to provide. It was only on receipt of the Decision and only then that we were made aware that the Financial Calculations they had made were approximately $100000 in excess of the actual deposits, they had used incomplete duplicated information from another file, had calculated transfers to credit cards as actual income, being criticised for deleting personal information, accused of not supplying all statements in completeness even though it was confirmed with the Department that if any were missing for us to be contacted. My husband was never given an opportunity to explain or make comment on their damning statements or findings, or provided with an opportunity to make the information complete if they believed any were missing. I attempted to obtain these “supposable” Calculations through FOI process. First they were refused on the basis that it was covered by the “secrecy laws” and then being told they were in the Court Documents. Went to the Court to inspect the documents, not there. Researched through National Archives, apparently the Department should have kept the Calculations for Seven Years. Applied to the PC re Privacy Law, recommended to apply to the AAT. Applied to the AAT, only then being told the calculations had been “destroyed.” Applied to the PC again on the basis that documents were destroyed. Told by the PC the FM would sort it out. Went to the FM Court, FM would not take into consideration any new evidence which was included in several Affidavits including a self prepared spreadsheet of the calculations which supported that the Statements by the Department were false. Back to square one. There is still an inaccurate, damning, false record wrongly accusing my husband of having financial resources not reflected in his taxable income with no supporting documentation supporting the decision. Unfortunately it seems that it is too late now and because we have made previous complaints and that the matter has been closed by the PC and will no longer be dealt with. Just not fair and it seems that there is no other avenue to take to have the information corrected and made accurate. Only option is to appeal to Higher Level which will result in exorbitant legal costs. I can not understand why this should be the case when there are Legislations in place for the public to help when not satisfied with a Government Departments misuse of information, however with the past policies and procedures this has been accepted as acceptable?? Hopefully the change will allow the public to be able to have a fairer and less complicated process when wanting to make use of a Legislation when faced with similar situations. It is about time that it is less difficult for the General Public to exercise their Rights when it comes to Departments Collecting, Storing, Destroying Information and lets face it, I am sure as a Small Business Owner, if at anytime we said that our financial documentation had been destroyed that supported our Business Operations and Financial Reporting, we would be in Court Facing Penalties, possibly jail.