15.104 One issue for consideration is whether the same body should administer the Privacy Act and the FOI Act. This is the case in the Northern Territory and a number of overseas jurisdictions, for example British Columbia, Ontario, and the United Kingdom.
15.105 While the ALRC notes that the combination of these roles appears to work effectively in other jurisdictions, the ALRC does not recommend the establishment of a single body to administer the Privacy Act and the FOI Act. There was little support for such a change. Some stakeholders noted that the Privacy Act and the FOI Act have different focuses, and so should be administered by two different bodies.
15.106 The Australian Government should, however, establish a body to oversee the administration of the FOI Act. A number of stakeholders supported a separate body, such as an Information Commissioner, to oversee freedom of information at the federal level. As outlined in DP 72, in the ALRC’s view it would be appropriate to confer the functions of the Freedom of Information Commissioner on the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
15.107 As noted above, the Australian Government’s election policy document Government Information: Restoring Trust and Integrity sets out the Government’s proposals for a restructure of freedom of information laws. These proposals include bringing together the functions of privacy protection and freedom of information in an Office of the Information Commissioner. The Office of the Information Commissioner would act as a whole-of-government clearinghouse for complaints, oversight, advice and reporting for freedom of information and privacy matters. Under this proposal, the existing role of the Privacy Commissioner would be preserved as a statutory office holder responsible for federal privacy laws. A Freedom of Information Commissioner would also be appointed as a statutory office holder responsible for freedom of information law, similar to the Privacy Commissioner.
15.108 While the ALRC does not recommend a single regulator to administer the Privacy Act and the FOI Act, the ALRC notes that the Government’s proposal for an Office of the Information Commissioner is not inconsistent with any of the ALRC’s recommendations in this Report. In particular, the ALRC notes that the Government’s policy maintains a separate focus for the Privacy Commissioner and a Freedom of Information Commissioner. The ALRC also notes the advantages of having the Privacy Commissioner and a Freedom of Information Commissioner co-located in a single office to deal with complaints about access, particularly when a document contains a mixture of personal and non-personal information.
 See Ch 2.
 See Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia, Website <www.oipcbc
.org> at 30 July 2007; Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner, Website <www.ipc.on.ca> at 30 July 2007; United Kingdom Government Information Commissioner’s Office, Website <www.ico.gov.
uk> at 30 July 2007.
 Confidential, Submission PR 143, 24 January 2007; Public Record Office Victoria, Submission PR 72, 3 January 2007.
 Australian Government Department of Human Services, Submission PR 541, 21 December 2007; Smartnet, Submission PR 457, 11 December 2007; Australian Privacy Foundation, Submission PR 167, 2 February 2007; Public Record Office Victoria, Submission PR 72, 3 January 2007.
Australian Law Reform Commission, Review of Australian Privacy Law, DP 72 (2007), [12.103]–[12.104]. Parliament of Australia—Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the Freedom of Information Amendment (Open Government) Bill 2000 (2001), 58.
 K Rudd and J Ludwig, Government Information: Restoring Trust and Integrity, Election 2007 Policy Document (2007).