|
Committee Membership
CONTENTS
Background to the Review
Conduct of the survey
Usage of the indexed file lists on the internet
Discussion of findings of the survey
File lists and FOI
Developments in records management
Developments in internet access to government information
The tabled copies of the file lists
Effects of the order on FOI requests to the agencies
Conclusions and recommendations
Appendix A: Senate order of 30 May 1996 for the production of indexed lists of
departmental files
Review of the Operation of the Order for the Production of Indexed Lists of
Departmental Files
Background to the Review
On 28 June 1994 the Senate agreed to a motion proposed by Senator Harradine and amended
by Senator Vanstone, relating to an order of the Senate for the production of indexed
lists of departmental files. [1] Before the order came into
effect, this committee was required to report on whether the material so produced would be
in a user-friendy format, whether the order was practical to implement, the cost of the
order, the implications for departments, and whether there might be more efficient and
effective methods of achieving the objectives of the order.
The committee duly reported on 20 September 1994, after seeking and receiving a
submission on the subject from the government of the day. It found that the objectives of
the motion - particularly to make Freedom of Information (FOI) more workable by providing
better opportunities to discover what information existed, to make coordination within the
bureaucracy easier and to ensure that members and senators benefitted from information
technology - were intrinsically valuable and consistent with the notion of increasing the
accountability of the executive government to parliament. It agreed that there were
practical difficulties associated with the order, and recommended a trial of a substitute
order, one which did not involve retrospectivity and which excluded certain classes of
files. [2]
After extensive debate, amendments to the order were agreed to on 10 October 1994,
14 November 1994 and 7 June 1995. The order was slightly amended again in the 38th
Parliament to apply to agencies as well as departments. Lists were to be tabled twice a
year, with lists concerning files created between 1 July and 31 December tabled by the
tenth day of the autumn sittings, and of files created between 1 January and 30 June by
the tenth sitting day of the spring sittings. The indexed lists were to be provided both
in hard copy and on disk. Files permitted to be excluded from the lists included files
transferred to Australian Archives, individual case-related files and files relating to
personnel matters. In addition, the order allowed for the exclusion from the title of a
file any part of the title which would disclose commercially confidential, national
security or identifiably personal matters.
The Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee was required, under
the amended order, to review the operation of the order. To assist it in doing so, it
sought submissions from all portfolios and took the views expressed into consideration in
its report, entitled Review of the Operation of the Order for the Production of Indexed
Lists of Departmental Files, which was tabled on 5 February 1997. It found that
public access to the information could be improved by placing it on the internet but that
the visibility of the information would be less than ideal because of the lack at that
time of a central access point to government information. The committee also noted the
moves underway to improve the indexing of file lists and to integrate the management of
electronic and paper records.
One of the recommendations contained in the committee's Review was the following:
it is recommended that file lists from a small number of departments which historically
have received a large number of FOI requests be put on the Senate home page on the
internet on a trial basis. Links to the home pages of the departments involved be
established. The trial should run for six months. At the end of the trial period this
committee would assess the usage of the file lists and report to the Senate on:
- whether the practice should be extended to all file lists; and
- the most appropriate location(s) on the Internet for the lists. [3]
The committee selected the Departments of Social Security and Veterans' Affairs,
respectively, for the trial. The departments duly provided, on 26 February 1997 and 3
March 1997 respectively, disks covering files created between 1 July 1996 and 31 December
1996, with the exceptions alluded to in the order. The indexed file lists were first added
to the committee's home page with links to the departmental home pages in September 1997
and, after a number of false starts caused in part by the move from a Senate server to a
whole-of-Parliament server, a systematic usage survey commenced in December 1997 and
continued until May 1998.
Conduct of the survey
The committee sought the assistance of Senate Information Services (SIS) and the
Parliamentary Information Systems Office (PISO) to compile statistics on usage of the file
lists. The software package WebTrends was used to provide information on the
following aspects of usage:
- general statistics, including hits for the entire site (fapa_ctte/file_lists), the
number of user sessions, geographic spread of users, the average number of user sessions
per day and their length;
- most requested pages;
- top entry pages;
- single access pages;
- most downloaded files;
- most active organisations;
- most active countries;
- summary of activity by day;
- activity level by day of week;
- activity level by hour of day;
- most downloaded file types and sizes; and,
- most accessed directories.
Usage of the indexed file lists on the internet
In the six months from December 1997 to May 1998 inclusive, there were in total 400
user sessions, defined as a session of activity (all hits) for one visitor to the Web
site. User sessions ranged from a low of 50 in total for the month of December 1997 to a
high of 98 for March 1998, and averaged at 66.6.
As shown in Table 1, users to any one individual “page” – that is, the
Social Security file list or any of the four parts of the Veterans' Affairs file lists
– were much lower.
Table 1: User sessions per page (and in brackets, average time in minutes:seconds per
session)
| Page |
December |
January |
February |
March |
April |
May |
| Social Security |
21 (00:07) |
19 (04:47) |
18 (00:34) |
22 (00:16) |
9 (03:56) |
17 (01:28) |
| Veterans' Affairs Part I |
12 (00:08) |
12 (01:04) |
7 (00:13) |
22 (01:32) |
11 (01:28) |
18 (00:26) |
| Veterans' Affairs Part 2 |
10 (00:11) |
8 (01:58) |
11 (1:42) |
33 (00:12) |
16 (01:55) |
16 (00:42) |
| Veterans' Affairs Part 3 |
15 (00:08) |
14 (01:26) |
14 (00:09) |
28 (00:11) |
16 (03:05) |
16 (01:31) |
| Veterans' Affairs Part 4 |
11 (00:08) |
11 (02:11) |
13 (00:50) |
22 (00:49) |
13 (00:26) |
14 (00:22) |
Users, as determined by the suffix of their domain name, were primarily from Australia
as indicated in Table 2.
Table 2: Percentage of user sessions from Australia
| December |
January |
February |
March |
April |
May |
| 50 |
57.62 |
68.11 |
62.24 |
63.63 |
63.76 |
In the six months surveyed, 84 user sessions originated in the United States, four in
Yugoslavia, three in the United Kingdom, two each in Canada and New Zealand and one each
in Israel, Belgium, Poland, Japan, Italy, and South Africa.
The committee did not analyse closely weekday versus weekend usage or day versus
evening usage when it became apparent that the level of overseas usage would make such
statistics, based on Australian time, pointless.
Within Australia, overwhelmingly use came from the Parliament House site, aph.gov.au,
as shown in Table 3. This is not broken down further, so it cannot be determined from the
information supplied whether the users are senators and members and their staff, library
staff, other staff or the committee secretariat or PISO conducting checks.
Table 3: aph.gov.au access to the file lists, as a percentage of total hits
| December |
January |
February |
March |
April |
May |
| 49.07 |
67.71 |
74.3 |
66.38 |
60.23 |
59.54 |
Discussion of findings of the survey
A number of problems associated with this exercise have undoubtedly limited its value.
The largely unavoidable delays between receipt of the file lists, their being made
available on the internet and the commencement of the monitoring may have reduced the
potential amount of interest in the lists and hence in turn reduced their usage. The links
to the home pages of the two departments in question did not always operate; nor was there
access to the file lists from the two departments' home pages. Despite this, the lists
were used. In comparison with the usage of the Senate site, however, the file lists usage
was insignificant: for the month of April 1998, for example, the Senate site attracted
221,103 hits, compared with 171 for the file lists site.
From the statistics obtained, it is difficult to determine whether the users are
`browsers' or persons seriously interested in the file lists. The overseas usage, which
ranged from a high of 50% in December 1997 to a low of 31.76% in March, suggests the
former. [4] The percentage of total hits at weekends (albeit
`weekends' by Australian time), which peaked at 29.1% in March, may also suggest browsing
use, as does the brief time spent per page. In December 1997, for example, this varied on
average from 1 second to 11 seconds per page; the 7 seconds on average spent in that month
on the Social Security `page', which in printed form runs to 11 A4 sheets, would not allow
for more than the most cursory of scrutiny. The longest average time in any month spent on
the Social Security entry was 4:47, or four minutes and forty-seven seconds, in January;
this was the exception rather than the rule, however.
A few users are clearly spending time viewing the indexed lists of files. The committee
secretariat did not itself keep records of the number of times it went outside the
firewall to check on the lists and it is reasonable to assume that PISO and SIS did
likewise, which may in part account for the high usage from the parliament address.
Senators and members and their staff might have accessed the file lists, if they intended
to do so, either on the intranet within the firewall or on the internet. It is difficult,
therefore, to determine a likely breakdown of the aph.gov.au users who constituted between
a low in December 1997 of 49.07% and a high in February 1998 of 74.3% of all users, in
terms of total hits.
To the committee, it appears that a considerable amount of time, effort and cost is
involved in maintaining the file lists on the committee's home page, for little return. It
is difficult to determine what level of overall usage would constitute `sufficient' usage
to warrant the continuation of the order in its present form. Given that there is some
internet usage of the file lists, despite their rather obscure internet location, and some
usage of both hard and electronic copies of the lists via the Senate Table Office, the
committee believes that the public provision of the lists should continue, in the interest
of open government. It considers later in this report the most appropriate way in which
this can be achieved.
File lists and FOI
One of the objectives of the attempt to give greater visibility to file lists was to
facilitate access to relevant records for FOI purposes. The committee notes that the joint
review of the FOI Act by the Administrative Review Council and the Australian Law Reform
Commission pointed to the `little scope for a [FOI] applicant to determine independently
what files or documents exist'. [5] Section 8 of the FOI Act
requires agencies to publish in their annual reports a statement of the categories of
documents that are maintained in the possession of the agency while section 9 requires
agencies to have documents such as manuals containing rules or guidelines available for
inspection and purchase and to deposit with regional offices of Australian Archives an
annually updated list of that material. The review recommended that such lists should be
available instead for inspection at all AGPS shops, public libraries and branches of the
relevant agency; it also recommended monitoring of compliance with obligations under
sections 8 and 9 by the FOI Commissioner. [6]
With the advances in availability of government information on the internet, the
principle of ready availability should be more easy to achieve. It is questionable whether
this will lead to more or fewer FOI requests, however, as an examination of recent FOI
usage will indicate.
The most recent annual report on the operations of the FOI Act [7]
showed a sharply downward trend in the number of FOI requests, from 39,327 in 1995/96 to
30,788 in 1996/97, a decrease of 21.71%. In his introduction to the report, the
Attorney-General suggested that a possible explanation for the decrease was the change in
practice in the Australian Taxation Office, which now makes more information available
outside the FOI Act. He commented:
It is pleasing to see that access is being given to certain information without the
need for formal requests. Government agencies have always been encouraged to give access
to documents (including exempt documents), otherwise than as required by the FOI Act,
where they can properly do so. [8]
The Departments of Social Security and of Veterans' Affairs again received the greatest
number of FOI requests, with 7,439 (24.16%) and 11,883 (38.6%) respectively, although in
both cases the overall number of requests received by those departments was a reduction on
the previous year. Only 7.8% of the requests to Social Security were totally refused,
while the figure for Veterans' Affairs was 0.4%. Seven Social Security FOI cases, and none
from Veterans' Affairs, were taken to and determined by the Administrative Appeals
Tribunal, and in no case was access granted in full or in part. [9]
According to the report, FOI requests made to the Departments of Social Security and
Veterans' Affairs are usually from clients seeking access to documents containing their
own personal information. [10] As personal name information is
excluded from the file lists order, it is difficult to see how the provision of those
lists would assist persons in refining their FOI requests.
Developments in records management
Since the order for the production of file lists came into effect, attention has been
drawn to the parlous state of records and data management in many Commonwealth agencies
through the Australian Law Reform Commission's review of the Archives Act 1983 and
the Australian National Audit Office's detailed data management audit of six agencies. The
former review noted:
The problems caused by a lack of consistent guidance and training for recordkeepers
have been compounded by the fact that most Commonwealth agencies are currently operating a
mixture of paper based and electronic recordkeeping systems. Links between these systems
are often inadequate or non-existent, while many records which are produced on personal
computers and transmitted by electronic mail may not become part of a formal recordkeeping
system at all. [11]
It is likely that a mixture of paper based and electronically based recordkeeping
systems will continue to exist for the forseeable future. There has been development in
the area of electronic records management, however, with the Office of Government
Information Technology (OGIT) announcing in June 1997 the accreditation of five companies
for records management systems and their placement on a Shared Systems Suite. Any
Commonwealth agency wishing to implement a new records management system must use an
approved product from an approved company.
An efficient records management system is clearly a step in the right direction but
that alone may not be sufficient to ensure that records are easy to find. The committee
cannot be sure whether the publication of file lists via the original order of the Senate
has resulted in meaningless names being given to files, or in delays in the creation of
files. The Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, in its examination of
the additional estimates for 1997-98, heard questioning on the existence of `off-file
notes' [12] and, while this was denied by the agency in
question, [13] it raises the possibility that an individual
seeking information through FOI might be impeded more by the fact that the agency's record
keeping was inadequate than by the lack of access to file lists.
In its examination of the file lists provided by Social Security and Veterans' Affairs,
the committee formed the view that the file titles were for the most part highly specific
and should leave little room for misfiling or misunderstanding, though whether this was
born out in fact was not an issue the committee could pursue. Whether the file lists as
presented constituted a complete record of the files created for the period was not
something the committee could independently verify.
Developments in internet access to government information
On a broader level, the committee notes the changes underway in facilitating access to
government information. From 31 March 1998, a new internet single entry point –
– has provided one-stop access to Commonwealth Government information, services,
departments and agencies 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The entry point includes
keyword search facilities, media releases, a government–wide telephone directory and
links to department and agency sites. This is a joint development by OGIT, AusInfo and the
National Library of Australia.
Other developments in train, as announced by the Prime Minister in Investing for
Growth, include the delivery of all appropriate Commonwealth services via the Internet
by the year 2001 and the establishment of a Commonwealth Information Centre as a principal
point of access to information about government information. Under the auspices of OGIT,
the Information Management Steering Committee and its subcommittees are continuing to work
on a strategy for a whole-of-government approach to the management of access to government
information so that accessing government information will entail not merely locating the
home page of relevant Commonwealth agencies but also searching a wide range of individual
records.
In considering whether likely users of the file lists would have access to the
internet, the committee considered general internet usage across Australia. A recent
report from the Australian Bureau of Statistics [14] indicated
that home use of the internet was doubling every year, with 1,038,000 persons accessing
the internet from home in the 12 months to February 1998. In all, over three million
Australians aged 18 years and over accessed the internet in the same period, with two
million of these reporting that they used it for `general browsing'. The internet is
rapidly becoming the first port of call for government information and is increasingly
being made accessible via public libraries and government shopfronts. In the committee's
view, if it is determined that file lists are to be made available, the most viable
location for them in the short term at least would be through the internet home page of
each department and agency.
The tabled copies of the file lists
While no formal study of the use of the file lists deposited in the Senate Table Office
has been undertaken, anecdotal evidence suggests their use is extremely modest. Whether or
not this is the case, there remains a Senate order for their production. Although the
committee is not formally required to, and has not, rigorously followed up on adherence to
the Senate order relating to the deposit of newly created file lists with the Senate Table
Office, it has noted that certain agencies appear not to have tabled their file lists by
the required time (that is, by not later than the tenth sitting day of the spring and
autumn sittings) and hence are technically in breach of the Senate order. For example,
file lists covering the period 1 July 1997 – 31 December 1997 should have been tabled
by 24 March 1998. File lists for the Department of Defence and the department and agencies
within the Industry, Science and Tourism portfolio were tabled on 25 March 1998; for the
department and agencies of the Communications and the Arts portfolio on 26 March 1998; for
ATSIC on 30 March 1998; and for Social Security and Centrelink on 2 April 1998.
Senate Privilege Resolution 6 (8) provides that `A person shall not, without reasonable
excuse, disobey a lawful order of the Senate or a committee'. Those agencies in breach of
the order appear, on the evidence available to the committee, to have committed a contempt
of the Senate. As many agencies are currently changing their records management systems,
however, they may be experiencing difficulties in complying with the order. The committee
expects that, if that were the case, correspondence would be provided explaining the
situation and seeking an extension of time to table the indexed lists.
Effects of the order on FOI requests to the agencies
Both Social Security and Veterans' Affairs were asked informally for their impressions
of the helpfulness of the file lists in assisting FOI applicants to make their requests
more specific. Both departments stressed that the best source of assistance in this regard
was the FOI officer, who could help applicants in framing their requests to enhance their
chance of success. Veterans' Affairs in particular suggested that the newly created files
to which the Senate order refers were not the files being sought by FOI applicants, who
were primarily concerned with their own personal files. In the previous nine years, only
one federal politician and no journalist had made a FOI request to Veterans' Affairs, and
the one request was subsequently withdrawn.
Conclusions and recommendations
The two major issues which the committee has had to consider are whether indexed file
lists per se in the public arena are a useful enhancement to open and accountable
government and in particular, an aid to FOI requesters; and if so, what the most
appropriate location for those file lists might be.
The committee believes that the provision of file lists is at best a partial solution
to the perceived problem of access to government information. If the spirit of the FOI Act
were adhered to, as it appears increasingly to be, with agencies adopting a more
enlightened attitude to access to information, the public availability of file lists would
not be an issue. With the adoption of more sophisticated records management systems,
however, the provision of file list information, with the exclusions already agreed to,
should not be a particularly onerous task if it were deemed to be desirable. The downward
trend in FOI requests and the increase in access to documents outside the formal FOI
process, as evidenced in the latest FOI annual report, suggests to the committee that the
provision of file lists may not be as necessary now as it was thought to be in 1994. In
the interest of open and accountable government, however, the committee is inclined to
recommend that the process continue. Its preference would be for the file lists to be
cumulative, rather than six months' worth of newly created files on each occasion.
While the committee doubts that the continued public availability of file lists could
be justified for the assistance primarily of FOI users, it believes that the practice can
be justified in terms of open government. Since the order was amended on 30 May 1996,
departments and agencies have tabled four sets of six-monthly file list returns, which
should be ample time to develop streamlined mechanisms for creating the lists. The
committee is of the view that the practice of making file lists available should be
continued, though not by the present method.
The committee is strongly of the view that the most appropriate location for such file
lists is on the internet home pages of each Commonwealth department and agency. The
development of the internet has provided a powerful new medium for making government
information available to the public. Whole-of-government changes to the availability of
government information on the internet, such as the single entry point, are already in
place, while others, such as the development of an electronic information locater system
for Commonwealth government information and records, are being developed.
In the view of the committee, the usage of the newly created file lists of the
Department of Social Security and the Department of Veterans' Affairs on the committee's
internet home page is not sufficient to warrant the continuation of the trial.
The committee therefore recommends:
- that the trial loading of file lists from the Department of Social Security and the
Department of Veterans' Affairs on the committee's internet home page be discontinued;
- that each department and agency provide, on its internet home page, access to an
indexed list of all relevant files created from 1 January 1998 with the present exclusions
to continue; (departments and agencies may choose to maintain on line an indexed list of
all new files created from that date or to maintain on line an indexed list of, as a
minimum, the most recent year's file creations); and
- that the order of the Senate of 30 May 1996 be varied to provide for the tabling in
the Senate on the present six-monthly basis of letters of advice that such indexed lists
of files have been placed on the internet.
Should the Senate agree to the above recommendations, the committee will review the
operation of the amended order. In the event that it finds problems in compliance, the
committee will report again to the Senate on the matter.
Shayne Murphy
Chairman
APPENDIX A
Extract from the SENATE JOURNALS
Date: 30 May 1996 No: 15 Page: 279
Indexed Lists of Departmental and Agency Files-Order for Production of
Documents-Finance and Public Administration References Committee-
Reference
Senator Harradine amended his notice of motion by leave and, pursuant to notice of
motion not objected to as a formal motion, moved-
(1) That, subject to paragraph (2), there be laid on the table, by each minister in the
Senate, in respect of each department or agency administered by that minister, or by a
minister in the House of Representatives represented by that minister:
(a) by not later than the tenth day of the autumn sittings, an indexed list of the
titles of all relevant files, including new parts of existing files, created between 1
July and 31 December of the preceding year in the central office of that department or
agency; and
(b) by not later than the tenth day of the spring sittings, an indexed list of the
titles of all relevant files, including new parts of existing files, created between 1
January and 30 June of that year in the central office of that department or agency.
(2) For the purposes of this resolution:
"autumn sittings" means the period of sittings of the Senate first
commencing on a day after 1 January in any year;
"indexed list" means:
(a) a hard copy of an indexed list in which file titles may be grouped by
classifications used internally within departments or agencies, such as
"policy", "legislation", "advisings", etc.; and
(b) the same indexed list in electronic format for IBM compatible personal computers of
286 processors or above on 3.5" high density 1.44 MB floppy disks in an uncompressed
form; the file format to be in ACSII or, if the departments or agencies have the lists in
Microsoft Word for Windows or Microsoft Access, in Word (*.doc) and Access (*.mdb) formats
respectively and labelled accordingly; where data extends over more than one floppy disk,
each new disk commences with a new computer file; all disks submitted should be scanned
for computer viruses and it should be indicated on each disk that this has been done;
"relevant files" includes files relating to the policy advising
functions of the department or agency, including any relating to the development of
legislation and other matters of public administration, but need not include:
(a) files transferred to the Australian Archives;
(b) case related files (for example personal representations or dealing with the
personal affairs of departmental or agency clients or taxpayers); and
(c) files essentially related to the internal administration of the department or
agency (for example staff or personnel matters);
"spring sittings" means the period of sittings of the Senate first
commencing on a day after 31 July in any year; and
"title" means the name or title of the file, excluding any part of
that name or title which would necessarily disclose commercially confidential,
identifiably personal or national security matters.
(3) That this order have continuing effect.
(4) That, after the first returns under this order are tabled, the Finance and Public
Administration References Committee undertake a review of the operation of this order to
ascertain:
(a) the most efficient and effective method of ensuring that the information required
by this order to be tabled, is available on the public record (including in electronic
form);
(b) whether the indexing of file lists across departments and agencies can be improved
in consultation with the Australian Archives to provide uniform methods of obtaining
access to government data;
(c) whether the order needs amendment to take into account e-mail and electronic data
storage; and
(d) any legal or practical difficulties encountered by departments and agencies in
complying with the order;
and that the committee report to the Senate by no later than the first day of sitting
in 1997.
Question put and passed.
Footnotes
[1] Journals of the Senate, 28 June 1994, p. 2102.
[2] Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public
Administration, Report on the Order of the Senate for the Production of Indexed Lists
of Departmental Files, 1994, p. 3.
[3] Senate Finance and Public Administration References
Committee, Review of the Operation of the Order for the Production of Indexed Lists of
Departmental Files, 1997, p. 4.
[4] User country is determined by the suffix of the domain
name and may not always be an accurate identifier of the actual geographic location of the
site visitor.
[5] Australian Law Reform Commission/Administrative Review
Council, Open government: a review of the federal Freedom of Information Act 1982,
1995.
[6] ibid., pp. 82-83.
[7] Attorney-General's Department, Freedom of Information
Act 1982 Annual Report 1996-97, 1997.
[8] ibid., p. v.
[9] ibid., p. 47.
[10] ibid., p. 3.
[11] Australian Law Reform Commission, Draft
Recommendations Paper 4: Review of the Archives Act 1983, ALRC, December 1997, p. 60.
[12] Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation
Committee, Hansard, 20 November 1997, p. 345.
[13] ibid., 25 February 1998, p. 86.
[14] Australian Bureau of Statistics, Use of the Internet
by Householders, ABS, Canberra, May 1998.
Top
|