One word stymies request to CASA

By ALEXANDRIA CAUGHEY

A WORD can have many meanings and many words can share a meaning. That is, unless you are trying to obtain documents under a Freedom of Information (FOI) request from a government agency. In this instance, words are often considered in isolation with no regard for the context or intention of the request.

I recently submitted a request to the Civil Aviation and Safety Authority (CASA) requesting documents relating to public complaints received in the preceding 18 months. Given the unprecedented safety issues with both Tiger Airways and Qantas during this time, I was quite surprised when I received official correspondence stating that no such documents existed.

This led me to two possible conclusions. Firstly, that there had been no complaints made to CASA during this time or secondly, that CASA had failed to meet their obligations under the Freedom of Information Act. I found the former unlikely, and the latter unsettling.

Intrigued, I contacted the media department for clarification. I received a prompt response from the Manager Corporate Communications, Peter Gibson. It was a brief, albeit, important lesson in the power of bureaucratic process.

“It (a 24-hour hotline) is for people in the aviation industry to report problems, issues, safety concerns etc. As such, people don’t ‘complain’ about safety issues, they report them,” he said.

It was hard not to feel frustrated and exacerbated by the response. It was clear that the intention of my request was to receive documents pertaining to any public notifications sent to CASA that highlighted aircraft safety issues. CASA did not make any attempt to clarify my request or assist me to obtain the documents I was seeking. This flies in the face of recent changes to the FOI laws.

In 2010 the federal government introduced sweeping changes to the Freedom of Information Act. It was the implementation of an election promise of Labor leader Kevin Rudd to make the process more open and accessible by the public.

Included in these changes was the creation of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) and the appointment of the Australian Information Commissioner and the FOI Commissioner. In a press release issued by the Australian Labor Party on 13 May 2010, the government said the commissioners would act as a watchdog.

“The centrepiece of these reforms is the establishment of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and two new independent office holders, the Australian Information Commissioner and the FOI Commissioner,” it said. “The Commissioners will have wide ranging FOI functions to promote openness and transparency as intended by the Government’s reforms.”.

The election promise was made following concerns that information held by government departments and agencies was not readily available to the public. Due to the scope of the previous Freedom of Information Act, it was easier for FOI officers to reject applications based on semantics.

The aim of the amendments was to change the attitude of FOI officers from one of secrecy to one of full disclosure. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner published the following guidelines for agencies and minister’s offices on their website.

“The Information Commissioner urges agencies and ministers’ offices to develop FOI procedures to ensure: the access request process is user-friendly, accessible, prompt and low-cost, applicants can contact someone in the agency or minister’s office for assistance, applicants are kept informed throughout the process and given an opportunity to provide further information if this is needed,” it said.

These guidelines were developed in line with the 2010 changes that placed the onus on FOI officers to follow-up with applicants when requests did not meet strict definitions but the intention was clear. When wording my request to CASA, I kept this idea of ‘clear intention’ in the back of my mind. I wanted to produce a request that was not so broad that it would yield an unmanageable amount of documents. However, I did try to keep the purpose of the request clear.

I contacted the FOI office at CASA to ask what I could have done to make my request clearer so that it would have generated some results and why they failed to contact me when they deemed that the wording of the request was unsatisfactory to yield any results. The Freedom of Information Coordinator, Jennifer Roberts, said that the FOI officers do contact applicants when the scope of the request is broad.

“Depending on the form of the FOI request, if it is a broad or general request we contact the applicant to see if we can narrow the scope, such as putting a timeframe on the request…it could have been that Kate (Allen, A/g Freedom of Information Coordinator) was able to carry out the investigation based on the request and found the outcome you received,” she said.

Ms. Roberts said that the FOI officers at CASA are willing to assist applicants with finessing their requests where needed, but that ultimately applicants needed to know what they were looking for from the request.

“While we are here to assist addressing the scope of a request, applicants need to let us know what it is they want,” she said.

Ms. Roberts encouraged me to reconsider my request and submit it again to see if there were documents that may be related to what I was seeking. However, she pointed out I would need to be sure to amend the request sufficiently to avoid the same outcome.

The question then begs, have the 2010 changes made FOI requests more open or have agencies just gotten smarter at how they can get around them. Dr James Popple, Freedom of Information Commissioner, gave a presentation at the OAIC Information Policy Conference on the 15 November 2011, and said that he felt there had been great improvement in the first 12 months after the OAIC was established.

“In a very short time, we have seen a marked shift in attitudes towards document release: in response to FOI applications and through proactive disclosure. It is now easier and cheaper for members of the public to request access to government documents and to challenge access refusal decisions,” he said.

Was it just a song and dance? I don’t think so. While my own personal experience with the freedom of information process has been less than inspiring, the bigger picture does show some unprecedented benefits from the changes.

For starters, it is now financially possible for students and other low income individuals to go through the process, since the federal government waived the fees on FOI applications. Since 2010, any information released as a result of an FOI request must be published by the agency. This means that over time, a wealth of publicly available information will become available online.

Most importantly, it must be remembered that when it comes to changing bureaucratic process, it is a slow and steady process. In the interest of practicality and government adaptability, changes need to be made in baby steps, not leaps and bounds. That is not to say that we will never have an ‘ideal’ system of open government, but simply that ministers want time to prepare for the repercussions of such a system. Otherwise, someone will inevitably end up with egg on their face, and you can bet it won’t be pretty.