Search Toggle

Steep learning curve at ACT Health

By ELISE PIANEGONDA
Objectives of the Freedom of Information Process:
The concept of freedom of information is primarily to fulfill a democratic responsibility. Freedom of information recognises that government information should be made available to the public and that democracy benefits from increased public participation. Additionally, this process should occur promptly and at the lowest possible cost.

The Freedom of Information Act:
The Freedom of Information (FOI) Act was implemented in 1982. However, the Freedom of Information Reform Act was introduced last year (2010). The new reform aims to provide a general right by everyone of access to any document. Additionally, the new reform includes documents that are both generally and conditionally exempt. General exemption describes documents that do not have to be released, regardless of public interest. These include documents concerning personal privacy, intelligence agencies, or certain information from commercial companies.

However, conditionally exempt documents, if not released, must be proven that it is not in the public’s interest to have access to the documents. This is in direct opposition to how the original Freedom of Information Act dealt with these documents, requiring the individual or company acquiring the documents, to prove that the release of the information would be in the public interest. Therefore, the reform aims to ensure that the public has a greater chance of accessing FOI documents, as proving that it is not in the public interest is more difficult than proving that it is.
Bruce Arnold, University of Canberra lecturer, said the new reform “is a commitment that all information is available, except for those documents which are restricted. This is completely different to the old Act which showed all information as restricted, unless it was released”.
An additional key element of the new Act requires government departments to publish a wider range of information in annual reports, which must be publicly available and uploaded to their website. Furthermore, the new Act gives the public the right to access to documents, without explicit reason, as well as the right to correct and review personal information.

Cost of FOI Requests:
One of the largest changes brought by the new reform is the removal of the initial request fee and the lowering of retrieval fees. Additionally, individuals can request and retrieve personal information completely without cost.

However, there has still been some controversy over the cost of Freedom of Information requests. Recently, an article published in The Sydney Morning Herald (17th April 2011) showed that Australia’s Immigration Department granted The Sun Herald access to a video, after it had been edited at $9 a second. With the addition of costs for rendering and decision making, The Sun Herald was granted access to the 70 minute video for a total of $53,093.00 .

Creating the Request:
When requesting a Freedom of Information document it is important to craft it correctly in order to obtain the best possible results, and ideally, the retrieval of optimum documents. If you cast your request too wide, you will get hit for large retrieval costs. However, if you cast the request too narrow, you may miss the documents you are trying to obtain. Therefore, some guidelines to follow include limiting the search by time, interactor and geographic region. Finally, when lodging a Freedom of Information request, you must state that it is an FOI request and make reference to specific documents you wish to obtain. Under the Act, a document refers to a wide range of mediums, including email correspondence, government reports, press releases, transcripts and statistics, among others.

The FOI Request:
My original Freedom of Information request was submitted to ACT Health in early March. The request I made was ‘any documents relating to waiting times at Canberra Hospital over the periods: late 2001 until late 2002, late 2004 until late 2005 and late 2008 until late 2009’. My intention was to examine waiting times at Canberra Hospital and determine whether this had changed over the last 10 years, in particular surrounding the time periods where ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope was being elected and then re-elected. I had also hoped to link this in with the news angle of the government’s newly launched My Hospitals website, which provides information about the Canberra Hospital and waiting times from 2009 until 2010.

I was contacted by ACT Health’s Freedom of Information officer, Declan Kane, by phone within the week to discuss my request. He asked me to submit an amended request, providing more detail on the documents I was hoping to obtain and the time periods I requested. After some confusion with the spelling of Mr Kane’s name, I managed to send him an email with the following amended request; ‘I am seeking all documents concerning the physical time patients had to wait for surgeries, emergency etc (not documents relating to correspondence about waiting times), for the periods; September 2001 until September 2002, September 2004 until September 2005 and September 2008 until September 2009.’
In this new request, I was able to give ACT Health clearer guidelines of both the time frame in which I was hoping to obtain documents and the kind of documents I was hoping to obtain. In this way, I was narrowing my request, in a hope to increase the success of my request.

The Result of the Request:
Despite narrowing the request and searching for news and journal articles regarding waiting times at Canberra Hospital prior to submitting the request, my Freedom of Information request did not hold the results I had hoped for. As the Freedom of Information officer informed me, that while the statistics were not available on the My Hospitals website, they were already publically available, through the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). I was provided with the names of the documents, within which contain the statistics I was hoping to obtain.
As a result, I was given a result from my Freedom of Information request; it was just not one that I had hoped to receive. Furthermore, while it is useful to have the names of documents that contain the information I was seeking, these documents were not provided to me, and it was my responsibility to seek out and obtain these documents, with just their names and the name of the organization that holds them. As it turns out, this was relatively simple, as they are available online through the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare website.

Using the Information from the FOI Request:
While the information I received from my request was already in the public domain, an investigative story could be written about the process. It would appear that while 2008-2009 was a relatively good year for waiting times at Canberra Hospital , the other years waiting times have remained higher than the national average . In fact, it would appear that waiting times for elective surgery (in particular, ear, nose and throat surgery) have risen dramatically from 2001 , with the exception of the 2008-2009 period as already mentioned.

Finally, it would appear from the My Hospitals website that the waiting times at Canberra Hospital for elective surgery are still higher than the national average .

While the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare documents are difficult to read (as their layout changes on a yearly basis, as does the way they present the statistics) an investigative story looking into the specific statistics as well as Mr Stanhope’s policies in relation to hospital waiting times could produce interesting results.

Following the Act:
My Freedom of Information request flowed reasonably smoothly. I submitted my request via mail and within the week was contacted by phone by the Freedom of Information officer. I was also, via mail, sent a written acknowledgement of my request within 14 days and was sent a letter responding to my request within the month.

Bruce Arnold, University of Canberra lecturer said that while the reformed Freedom of Information Act was a step in the right direction, there needs to be reforms to other areas of the system as well.

“Freedom of Information changes are just one part of the picture. The reality is that we need to look at the overall government management and note-taking practices”, Mr Arnold said.

“What we will see in response to Wikileaks will be some departments ceasing to document information. Information can’t be leaked if it’s not recorded. As a result we will see an increase in information exchanged by word of mouth, rather than electronically”, said Mr Arnold.

Mr Arnold also explained that the ‘post-it note’ problem was a serious issue that needed to be addressed. This is where a vital piece of information is not included in a document itself, but added via a post-it note, which is then not provided alongside the document with a Freedom of Information request.

Bibliography & Sources:

Australian Hospital Statistics 2001-02, 2003, The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Ch. 5 Waiting Times for Elective Surgery, p. 78.

Australian Hospital Statistics 2004-05, 2006, The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Ch. 6 Waiting Times for Elective Surgery, p. 114.

Australian Hospital Statistics 2008-09, 2010, The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Health Services Series, No. 34, p. 239.

‘Freedom of Information? Well not at $9 a second’, 2011, The Sydney Morning Herald, 17 April, http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/freedom-of-information-well-not-at-9-a-second-20110416-1dinz.html

The Canberra Hospital My Hospitals, Elective Surgery: Ear, nose and throat surgery for July 2009–June 2010, accessed 3rd April 2011, http://www.myhospitals.gov.au/hospital/the-canberra-hospital/services/elective-surgery/ear-nose-throat-surgery

Recent Comments

0

Be the first to comment!

Post Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *