Freedom from Information?

McGinty Sends Kneecapped Wookey to Knackery

Attorney General Jim McGinty continues to confound many of us that thought he was both a smart and competent Minister. Competency disappeared from view about 18 months ago and the 'smart' is beginning to look like a euphemism. His recent antics show he has about as much depth as a car park puddle.

Ms Darryl Wookey the Acting Information Commissioner should have given McGinty an ultimatum about continuing in her acting position long ago. "Unless you appoint me Commissioner I am not prepared to continue and will resign". It is unacceptable that Wookey has been in an acting position for nearly four years - since the 3 November 2003.

Wookey's reappointments may well have been illegal. If not, they were against the spirit of the FOI Act. The Act allows the appointment of an Acting Commissioner for one year. Wookey has been reappointed 4 times. Why have a one-year limit on acting appointments in the legislation if you don't observe it and just repeat the process annually? That was not the intention of the act and is an abuse of the provision.

Would Wookey have lost the prospect of the top job if she made a decision to release of documents which the AG didn't want released during the last four years? The FOI Commissioner is not there to protect the Government, but ensure fair and reasonable access to documents about Government decision making.

The acting position should have been for no longer than it took to advertise and make a permanent appointment. The failure of the Attorney General to appoint a Freedom of Information Commissioner is contemptuous of State Parliament and the public.

Ms Darryl Wookey as the Acting FOI Commissioner since 3 November 2003 has continued to have a sword hanging over her head. Considering her predecessor Ms Keightly-Gerrard was in the position for 10 years, you would have thought McGinty had the ability to organise the succession during the last two years of her contract that was under his stewardship. The provision of an Acting Commissioner for 1 year is to ensure the substantive position was filled promptly. Perhaps the Corruption and Crime Commission should look at that - if they're game! It may not be corrupt, it may well be illegal (who is going to pay $50 000 to challenge it in the Courts?), but it is certainly 'inappropriate' behaviour by the AG. Perhaps the next Director of the CCC will be in an Acting position until he incurs McGinty's wrath?

Wookey was required to deal with sensitive FOI requests into the deaths of babies at KEMH for Women (The $9 million Inquiry undertaken by lawyer Neil Phillips). That material was released to 'The West Australian' newspaper at the death knock, after years of appeals and finally court action. The incredibliy stupid closure of the Woodside Maternity Hospital to fill the half-empty Kaleeya Hospital - a financial lemon that McGinty purchased in 2004, just before the State election, also involved FOI requests. In that case, was it difficult for Wookey in an acting position to impartially deal with a sensitive matter that involve the trifecta of:

• her boss the Attorney General (a person who has great influence on your future)

• his Health Portfolio and

• his electorate of Fremantle - a politically sensitive matter in the closure of Woodside Hospital?

Her job as Acting Commissioner was always on the line!

Parliament should appoint the FOI Commissioner - not McGinty

The FOI Commissioner should be appointed and vetted by Parliament to help ensure a fair and transparent appointment and hopefully - fair decisions. 'The West Australian' recently said that Wookey sought pre-selection for an ALP seat in State Parliament. While that should not preclude her from the job, a two third's majority in Parliament to confirm her appointment should ensure she was not just a political hack.

One point that emerges from this seedy saga is that AG McGinty does not want independent scrutiny of Government decisions. The Desert Rat will certainly scrutinise those decisions.