Freedom of Information (FOI) Coordinators and their staff were supportive of the legislation. However, the agencies examined can do considerably more to fully achieve the intentions of the Act. On the positive side, all three agencies had processes in place to handle requests and had made a number of changes to improve the effectiveness of the FOI process. Fees and charges had also been kept to a minimum. No processing fees were requested in the majority of cases, and if charged, were not unreasonable.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #114 - released 28 August 2003

The audit reviewed policies and practices in large government and non-government residential centres to determine if policies and practices protected the human and legal rights, safety and dignity of residents.

The report indicates that practices in both government and non-government centres fail to protect adequately the human and legal rights, safety and dignity of residents. Factors contributing to this situation are the absence of minimum criteria for the protection of residents’ human and legal rights, safety and dignity, inadequate policies to direct service delivery, the absence of staff training to reinforce practices, low levels of supervision and the absence of effective monitoring systems to trigger a response to service deficiencies. Even where policies have been developed to guide practices, the nature of institutional care (the environment renders some policies ineffective), inadequate implementation, inadequate monitoring of practices and lack of compliance results in the centre’s failure to protect people living there.

Parliamentary reference - Report number #40 - released 26 June 1997