❓ Hon. Sally Talbot questions the Attorney General regarding delays in the City of Albany's response to a Freedom of Information request by Ms. Faileen James. The Attorney General outlines the timeline of events and emphasizes the Information Commissioner's independence.
AnsweredQoN 640Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
CITY OF ALBANY — FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
REQUEST
640. Hon SALLY TALBOT to the
Attorney General:
I refer to the complaint made to the Information Commissioner
by the former chief executive officer of the City of Albany, Ms Faileen James,
that the City of Albany has failed to respond to her freedom of information
request lodged over 12 months ago.
(1) What is
the reason for this extraordinary delay in getting a response from the City of
Albany to Ms James' FOI request?
(2) When will
Ms James get a response to her request?
(3) What
action will the Attorney General take against the City of Albany if it is found
to have failed to comply with its obligations under the Freedom of Information
Act?
REQUEST
640. Hon SALLY TALBOT to the
Attorney General:
I refer to the complaint made to the Information Commissioner
by the former chief executive officer of the City of Albany, Ms Faileen James,
that the City of Albany has failed to respond to her freedom of information
request lodged over 12 months ago.
(1) What is
the reason for this extraordinary delay in getting a response from the City of
Albany to Ms James' FOI request?
(2) When will
Ms James get a response to her request?
(3) What
action will the Attorney General take against the City of Albany if it is found
to have failed to comply with its obligations under the Freedom of Information
Act?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this
question.
It is not the usual practice of the Information Commissioner
to publicly disclose details of matters while they are before him on review.
Please also note that the commissioner operates independently of executive
government. However, given the commissioner's understanding that the
question was asked with the authority of Ms James, the commissioner advises as
follows —
(1) The City
of Albany issued a decision in response to Ms James' FOI request on 27
September 2012. Ms James applied to the city for internal review of that
decision on 5 October 2012. The city issued a notice of decision on internal
review on 2 November 2012 and gave Ms James access to certain documents. Ms
James applied to the commissioner for external review of the city's
decision on 17 November 2012.
(2) The matter
is currently before the commissioner on external review. On 17 April 2013, the
Office of the Information Commissioner provided Ms James and the city with an
informal preliminary view of the issues in dispute. As a result, the city
disclosed further documents to Ms James. Following further submissions from the
parties, the commissioner provided a formal preliminary view to the parties on
13 August this year. He is currently undertaking further inquiries in response
to the parties' submissions to his preliminary view.
(3) This is a
matter for the commissioner, who operates independently of executive
government. It would be inappropriate of me to comment further while the matter
is still before him on review. Should the matter need to be resolved by the
commissioner's formal determination, this will be published on the
commissioner's website.
question.
It is not the usual practice of the Information Commissioner
to publicly disclose details of matters while they are before him on review.
Please also note that the commissioner operates independently of executive
government. However, given the commissioner's understanding that the
question was asked with the authority of Ms James, the commissioner advises as
follows —
(1) The City
of Albany issued a decision in response to Ms James' FOI request on 27
September 2012. Ms James applied to the city for internal review of that
decision on 5 October 2012. The city issued a notice of decision on internal
review on 2 November 2012 and gave Ms James access to certain documents. Ms
James applied to the commissioner for external review of the city's
decision on 17 November 2012.
(2) The matter
is currently before the commissioner on external review. On 17 April 2013, the
Office of the Information Commissioner provided Ms James and the city with an
informal preliminary view of the issues in dispute. As a result, the city
disclosed further documents to Ms James. Following further submissions from the
parties, the commissioner provided a formal preliminary view to the parties on
13 August this year. He is currently undertaking further inquiries in response
to the parties' submissions to his preliminary view.
(3) This is a
matter for the commissioner, who operates independently of executive
government. It would be inappropriate of me to comment further while the matter
is still before him on review. Should the matter need to be resolved by the
commissioner's formal determination, this will be published on the
commissioner's website.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.