The Right to Information Act was designed to offer the community additional transparency into public authorities through asking for information not already publicly available. 

As part of international Right to Know Week, a panel of experts were brought together by the Community Legal Centre to discuss how the process was treated by governments over the decades and if it was working.

University of Tasmania Law School acting dean Rick Snell introduced the discussion, having been a part of the state’s initial RTI process when it was first legislated.

Associate Professor Snell said the legislation did not need review, but raised concerns that there was not an incentive for the public to use the process.

He said governments, both current and in the past, needed to treat information as if it was the public’s, not their own.

“That means in some cases protecting it, but in other cases, making it available,” Associate Professor Snell said.

“There’s always going to be a certain minimum amount of information that can’t be released … but we should always strive to try to keep that to a minimum amount.

“I don’t think that you could say in the last 26 years that at any stage we’ve come close to achieving that.” 

He said there needed to be consideration of additional resources being placed into the Tasmanian Ombudsman’s office.

“In terms of that democratic dividend, we have said ‘we’ve got this piece of legislation that will, in most cases, lead to you getting access to high quality, timely information’,” Associate Professor Snell said. 

“The last thing in Tasmania that we can afford, given our history, is damaging public trust.” 

Tasmanian Ombudsman Richard Connock said the process was fundamental to a “strong participatory democracy”. 

“The process itself is setup to work well, however, the level of funding across public authorities, such as government departments and local government, and this office, together with a lack of education and training does not necessarily lead to the best outcomes,” he said. 

“Without adequate funding, either for this office or across public authorities, the process is compromised, efficiencies are diminished, and democracy is not best served.” 

Labor MP Madeleine Ogilvie and Greens leader Cassy O’Connor also sat on the discussion panel.