FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (FEES) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 30 September 2010.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (11:16): As there are no other speakers, I will seek to put this to the vote today, and I will speak now and close the debate. This was a bill introduced, consistent with a commitment from the opposition at the 2010 election, essentially to allow journalists to have access to public documents under freedom of information applications for free and to cover up to the first three hours of the work that is necessary to undertake to provide that documentation.

I have spoken on this matter some months ago. The support for this from those in the media world would be obvious. We received a number of concerns from journalists who would seek information from government. Sometimes it was a simple document, taking only a few minutes to be able to identify, retrieve and provide, but nevertheless the fees that applied would sometimes make that prohibitive, especially if they were advised that it was going to take a considerable time. So, we say that a fair compromise in this regard is that the media—our voice piece to ensure that freedom of speech is a reality in this state and not just something we enjoy on a piece of paper—should also have access, but to a reasonable period.

If the government said that most of these could be provided within half an hour or an hour and suggested some amendment, I would have been happy to look at it because I think some of them would take a very short time. On the other hand, it is reasonable that, if government is put to the expense of very substantial hours of work by a freedom of information officer within a department to locate material, that is something for which the taxpayers need some recompense. So, the purpose of this legislation is to make a reality of freedom of speech, to make a reality of transparency of government and to stop the mockery of the use and abuse of the freedom of information defences that the government repeatedly uses.

I myself have been fortunate to have had the support of the Ombudsman in a number of decisions now in which transparency, the core of the legislation, has been enforced. We have had directions from the Ombudsman that, first of all, the freedom of information officer decisions and/or reviews of government department heads should be overturned and that we should have the documents produced. I thank the Ombudsman for the extraordinary amount of work that he and his staff need to undertake to ensure that we have transparency of government with these documents.

So, the hurdle is not only one of cost, but it is also one of the process of having to appeal up the ladder, that is to the departmental head, then to the Ombudsman, then to the District Court if necessary. But it is an expensive and time consuming process. So, we have had some wins and, at least, in this small way, this bill is only narrowly dealing with a question of fee relief for those in the media to be able to have access to this information.

So, I am well aware that the government is going to oppose this. It is consistent with their cone of silence around the information that they are prepared to release about their government. It is totally consistent with the condemning by them of anyone who is a critic, so their way of dealing with it, is to try and keep that blanket of silence on the people of South Australia and, in this instance, to even close off their ears so that they cannot even hear about things by virtue of keeping the press suffocated and alienated from this information. So, I urge members to support this bill and let us open up and have a transparent government in reality.

The house divided on the second reading:

Majority of 4 for the noes.

Second read thus negatived.