FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (FEES) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 September 2010.)

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (10:54): I wish to continue my previous comments from a couple of weeks ago in this house. I was talking about the federal review and amendment of the Freedom of Information Act. The former Rudd opposition claimed that it would reform the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the commonwealth act) to promote a pro-disclosure culture and more openness in government. There was a small legislative reform in late 2008, which was more about process than openness.

The state legislation is modelled on the commonwealth legislation passed in 1982. All Australian states and the Australian Capital Territory have adopted similar legislation. National consultation was undertaken for the release of the draft Freedom of Information Amendment Reform Bill 2009 and, ultimately, it was introduced and passed in the federal parliament. Additionally, a separate bill providing for the Information Commissioner was also passed.

The Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, which included Senator the Hon. George Brandis SC, tabled a report in March 2010 on the federal reform bills. The coalition supported many of the provisions of the bill but, in the first instance, opposed the change in the onus of proof of appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, effectively requiring that applicants must show why secret government documents should not remain secret. It makes it incredibly difficult for applicants to successfully appeal decisions by the Information Commissioner (in South Australia it is the equivalent of the Ombudsman) and, secondly, remained concerned about the changes to fees and charges, in particular, discriminating between individual researchers and those deemed journalists or from non-government organisations.

This bill proposes reform as follows:

(a) It strengthens the objects of the act, emphasising open access to government documents to increase public participation in government processes, etc.

(b) Introduction of an Information Publication Scheme. This requires an agency to prepare a plan and publish information outlining the structure of the organisation, functions, appointment of officers, information in annual report, etc. Additionally, agencies are under an obligation to ensure the information published is up-to-date, correct and accurate. There is also a provision for review of the Information Publication Scheme within five years.

(c) To amend the public interest test for exemptions; the new definition of 'conditionally exempt documents'. The factors to be taken into account in the assessment are now clearly defined, together with factors that must not be taken into account—for example, embarrassment to government, loss of confidence in the government, and access could result in a person misinterpreting or misunderstanding the document. These are currently frequently used to refuse access to documents.

(d) Providing power to investigate the conduct of agencies on freedom of information matters.

(e) Introduction of a process declaring a person to be a vexatious applicant.

(f) Reducing the period for cabinet documents exemption from 20 years to 10 years.

This bill only includes amendments consistent with the strengthening of transparency as promoted by the federal Australian Labor Party. I support the bill and commend it to the house.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (10:59): I support this bill. I have always been strongly of the opinion that freedom of information was brought into being because people had the right to know certain information. Although it has been fairly controversial over the years, it has also been very useful. It has been a tool for the opposition, and other people in the community, to get access to information that may affect them and their communities.

I believe that openness and transparency are certainly to be admired and respected but the problem is that, in recent days, there has been a refusal to give this freedom of information for all sorts of obscure reasons. I think it is going against the original intent of the act to start denying access this way. I can understand that there will be some occasions when this information should be kept private, particularly if it is a commercial decision, but I believe there has to be an independent umpire involved in relation to this, so that these decisions can be made in a non-political way.

I understand that the Rudd Labor opposition—because this is to do with the federal area—claimed it would reform the Freedom of Information Act to promote a pro-disclosure culture, and more openness in the government. There was a small legislature reform in 2008, as the member for Hammond just said, which was more about the process than the openness of it. Also, the national consultation was undertaken for the release of the draft Freedom of Information Act reform in 2009, and ultimately it was introduced and passed in the federal parliament. Additionally, a separate bill providing for the Information Commissioner was also passed.

So I certainly support that we progress and support the Freedom of Information (Fees) Amendment Bill 2010, and I commend the member for Bragg—who is not here—for handling this for us. I certainly believe that we must always remind ourselves what the intent of the original Freedom of Information Act was all about and ensure that those principles are upheld and that it cannot be used for political reasons.

Mr PICCOLO (Light) (11:02): I wish to speak on this matter very briefly. I wish to speak on this matter because in the debate yesterday the member for Bragg, when talking about freedom of information and other matters, sought to link it with the current action against the Burnside council. There is court action at the moment, I understand, by a number of councillors to prevent the report prepared by Mr MacPherson from being released.

Yesterday in debate the member for Bragg suggested to the house, and therefore the community, that the minister was failing in her duty to release the report, when in fact that report, as I understand it, is being suppressed by court order, by an injunction by the court. So, for the member for Bragg (who is a solicitor, I understand, by profession) to come in here and suggest that the report is not in the public domain because of the minister is not only misleading, it is actually quite deceptive. She should correct the record, because freedom of information is very important, and this government has a good record in that area.

She was implying that this report was being suppressed by the minister, which is completely untrue. The report is not in the public domain by an action of the court. I do not wish to make a comment about the court—that is its domain and I do not want to be held in contempt of the court—but suffice to say that the member for Bragg should not be making allegations in this place that are completely untrue. If the opposition is to have any credibility on issues of freedom of information, they should call their member to order and correct the record.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Williams.