FOI - The ANAO reports on improving agencies' processes

By Avinesh Chand.

Key Points:
The ANAO recommends that the Attorney-General's Department, as the agency responsible for the general administration of the FOI Act, take a more active role in monitoring agency compliance.

The Australian National Audit Office ("ANAO") tabled in Parliament Audit Report No.57 2003-04 "Administration of Freedom of Information Requests" in late June 2004. As part of the Report, the ANAO audited six Commonwealth agencies[1] to assess the appropriateness of agencies' policies and processes for dealing with requests for information in accordance with the FOI Act and also assess agencies' compliance with provisions of the FOI Act in relation to selected requests for information.

The ANAO concluded that, to varying degrees, the audited agencies had in place appropriate policies and processes to support the processing of FOI requests and other obligations of the FOI Act.

The ANAO, however, recommended that the Attorney-General's Department, as the agency responsible for the general administration of the FOI Act, take a more active role in monitoring agency compliance with the requirements of the FOI Act.

The ANAO suggested that one way in which the Attorney-General's Department could do this would be by providing feedback to the Chief Executive Officers of agencies where non-compliance with the provisions of the FOI Act is identified. The Attorney General's Department has agreed to this recommendation and indicated that it will write to agency heads to advise them of any apparent consistent non-compliance with the FOI Act based on statistics which are provided to the Department for the purposes of compiling its annual FOI Report.

The ANAO found that when dealing with requests, operational areas generally focussed on files and reports and that there was no specific reference to electronic records, unless the requests received by the agency made a specific reference to such information. Given the current trend towards electronic file management and the reliance on electronic databases to capture information, the ANAO concluded that current approaches in some agencies meant that requests were being responded to in a manner that sees information in a narrower context than that provided for by the legislation. In this regard, it is important to note that "document" is interpreted in the FOI Act to include "any article on which information has been stored or recorded, either mechanically or electronically". As such, it becomes important for FOI decision makers to be aware of all electronic databases that an agency may use, and be able to directly or indirectly access such databases when considering FOI requests to ensure that the scope of the request is not unduly narrowed to hardcopy documents retained on paper files.

The ANAO also recommended that agencies instruct both primary and internal review delegates on their responsibilities under the FOI Act and the decision-making process within their agency before their appointment. The ANAO Report stated, of the agencies audited, most generally assumed that, because of the position held by the delegate, that they must have had either FOI training or administrative law training at some stage of their career. The Report also stated that while staff with direct responsibility for processing FOI requests had access to, and had completed, relevant initial training, no refresher courses were held to enable staff to maintain their knowledge.

The ANAO also recommended that agencies develop an agency-specific policy document which articulates the agency's approach to FOI issues, and related roles and responsibilities, and which is readily available to all staff.

The ANAO Report concluded that, generally, the audited agencies had in place processes that effectively monitored and reviewed the administration of FOI requests and other obligations under the FOI Act.