This government agency presents itself as a guardian of citizens rights, stating, for example, that it oversees "the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and review of decisions made by agencies and ministers under that Act".
However, in response to the submission, which referred to a multitude of serious failures of the Australian government with respect to Schapelle Corby, the following reply was forthcoming:
Mr Langford therefore focused specifically on the documented abuses of the Freedom of Information Act, as a single example:
The response of the OAIC was uncompromising, as they rejected the idea of even investigating these abuses, on the basis that the complaint was not submitted by the victim or her family:
An obviously frustrated Mr Langford pointed out the practical reality of this demand, particularly in the context of a hostile State position on so many other issues. At the same time he forwarded his correspondence to The Expendable Project.
Despite this clear explanation of context, and statement of the facts of the situation, the OAIC's position was rubber stamped by the 'Australian Information Commissioner', John McMillan.
Yet another government agency, purporting to uphold the interests and rights of the public, had been provided with the opportunity to address some of the grave and disturbing matters identified with respect to the Schapelle Corby case. As with all the others, it had demonstrated that, for Schapelle Corby at least, it was a placebo.
SEE ALSO:
The State reaction to the submission of the formal Crime Report (domestic)
The Quango Report
.