Bills

Freedom of Information (Offences) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 30 October 2014.)

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (10:32): I rise today to support the brilliant bill that has been put forward by the member for Hartley. I recognise the fact that he is using this valuable time we have on a Thursday morning to bring to the house such small issues that are of import and can help to improve the running of the South Australian parliament. The bill seeks to provide greater incentive, to put it politely, for ministers to leave the process of freedom of information requests well alone and for the departments to be able to do their work free from interference.

Before I talk about some of my own experiences with freedom of information requests, of which I have had quite a number, I would like to refer to the Ombudsman's report, where he talked about some of the issues as he saw them, which are detailed in a press release that the member for Hartley put out. He talks about issues with the freedom of information process, and he stated in his report:

…evidence provided to the audit strongly suggests that ministerial or political influence is brought to bear on agencies’ FOI officers, and that FOI officers may have been pressured to change their determinations in particular instances.

I would sincerely hope that this is not the case but, having said that, putting in place something that can create further incentive for proper behaviour is a very good thing.

When it comes to putting in FOI requests, I must admit that I have put in a number. I think I am somewhere over the 100 mark, but as a voracious learner I find it a fantastic way to be able to understand the workings of government outside the glossy brochures and documents we are given in this house. The response that I have been given and that my staff have been given is quite mixed. Some FOI officers are extremely helpful and realise that working together to narrow down the scope of requests to the information I am really looking for is a great way to shorten the time frame, shorten the process and create less work for freedom of information accredited officers.

Others, however, are quite obstructionist, and so often I get back the pro forma letter that says that 'the time for reviewing your application has expired and, because it's expired, it's deemed to have been refused'. In some cases, they do indeed refuse. In other cases, they say, 'Well, it doesn't stop me from giving you the information, so here it is.' I do find that quite an interesting process to go through but, nevertheless, I am appreciative of the information at whatever point in time it does come to me. The system, however, I have found to be clunky and protracted.

As a member of gen Y, I grant that I am used to technology, but it surprises me that, in this current generation, the government and FOI officers have only just woken up to the brilliant, world-changing invention that is the internet and, in particular, emails and have said, 'Well, member for Schubert, if you would like to receive your determinations and your FOI request answers back by email, we would be happy to do so.' I thought, 'This is absolutely fantastic.' Whilst it might not help the bottom line of Australia Post, I think that it really does help the bottom line of the South Australian government, and I applaud the government for it, long overdue though it is.

If we are to take ministerial accountability seriously, if we are to take government transparency seriously, and if we are to take open government seriously—and these are all claims that this state Labor government makes—this is a bill that needs to be supported. In fact, I can think of not one logical reason for why this bill should not be supported. It is not enough to simply say, 'Our government is open, our government is transparent, our government is clean.' It is not enough to merely say it: we actually have to do it.

In this case, we have a bill before us that helps to strengthen the actual doing, that strengthens the reality of the process as opposed to the rhetoric of the process. Instead of the feeling that our government is hiding something, South Australians should feel the warmth and the fact that this government bathes in the open transparency and sunshine that come with open and honest dealings, that there is nothing to hide and, if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear from this bill.

But unfortunately there are such dealings which have been made a bit more open in the public space which have called into question this government's credentials on this matter. Deals such as the land deal at Gillman, with significant questions around it and without an open and transparent process, have destabilised the population's trust in government. As a proud politician, some of the looks I get when people ask me, 'What do you for a living?' Anything we can do to improve people's trust in politicians and the standing of politicians and the government process is a good thing, and that is why this bill needs to be supported.

I will commend the government on its proactive disclosure. It has been fantastic reading to go through and look at various government departments, various ministers, various CEOs and their spending. It does seem to me that CEOs have a propensity to want to visit the Apple Store. It seems that CEOs and various ministers can spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars buying various Apple products, sadly not manufactured in South Australia, but I do not think that there is a locally-manufactured tablet advice, so we will give ministers and CEOs the benefit of the doubt.

At least I am lucky enough to be able to readily access this information, to readily access some of the expenses that are put onto ministerial credit cards as a result of overseas trips, to see the expenses, the everyday coffee shop expenses, that ministers and CEOs incur, and for that I applaud the government, but I do not think that it goes far enough.

On this side of the house we are often wont to give helpful hints to the government on its conduct. There is no standard uniformity to the proactive disclosure websites and no standard template. Some things are presented in different formats, often more confusing formats. It is often quite hard to find the links to the individual departmental pro-active disclosure websites, and it is again something the government could improve in the spirit of open, honest, sunshine warmth embracing, transparent government.

In closing, I challenge members of the government to stand up here and be able to argue against open, honest and transparent government. I implore them to support this bill so we can help to go some small way to improving the standing and measure of politicians in this place.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (10:40): I rise to support the bill as moved by the honourable member. It is very important, but it is but a very small step towards what we should be doing with regard to freedom of information in this state. South Australia has become a very secretive place when it comes to our government—very secretive. This bill seeks to ensure that the executive government does not cross the line in its role with regard to the release of information, and I think that is a good thing, but it is only a very small step compared with where we should be going, I believe. Notwithstanding that, it is very worthwhile to support this, and I know that the member has some other ideas he wants to bring forward, and I am certainly working on some of my own. I believe the whole of the FOI law in South Australia should be rewritten, and I will come to that in a couple of minutes.

First, let me give an example of the way FOI currently works in South Australia. Back in August a series of events occurred in my electorate, and I sought to get a better understanding of what was behind those events. It involved the banning of school children from drinking rainwater from the tank in the schoolyard. I will have a lot more to say about this some time hence, but the area school at Lucindale has had the ban applied. Schools in Bordertown have had the ban applied, yet schools in other parts of my electorate have not had the ban applied. I am seeking to get some information as to how the department came to the position it did.

Back in August I put in a freedom of information request. I asked my office only in the last couple of weeks to follow up, because the request had gone well past the date where we should have got some sort of answer, whether it be the information we were seeking or some request for an extension. I had my office talk to the freedom of information officer in the relevant agency, just to point out to them that, if an extension was sought, it had to be done by a senior member of the agency and the person making the request had to be informed, neither of which has happened in this case. The freedom of information officer told my office, 'I don't know why you're getting grumpy, the information will get to you some time in the next few weeks.' That was probably two months after it should have been processed.

So that just points to the culture we have within the bureaucracy in South Australia. That culture is: so what! Well, it is a very important tool, particularly for members of the opposition, to try to get their head around what is going on and how and why decisions have been made. It is even worse than that in my opinion. I think a culture of secrecy has developed within the bureaucracy.

To inform myself further of how the world could be, I recently visited our cousins across the big ditch in New Zealand and met with the New Zealand Ombudsman to talk about their freedom of information laws, the Official Information Act, New Zealand. I was somewhat surprised to learn that they have a completely different system from us, and a much more open system. What they have in New Zealand is a presumption certainly that no documents are exempt from release, but that information may be exempted from release. Certain pieces of information contained within a document may be exempted but, just because that information is in the document, it does not exempt the whole of the document. That is one big difference.

The other big difference is that information is not withheld from the general public just because it might have some political implications. In reality, there is a presumption that all information should be available for release, and the Ombudsman in New Zealand told me the test she applies when matters come to her attention is: what harm would occur if the information was released? She was at pains to tell me that did not include political harm. It was if it would create harm to the interests of the nation or harm to some commercial operations.

There is no presumption in New Zealand that a cabinet document is automatically exempt. They talk about proactive disclosure. They are seeking to have ministers proactively place on their agencies' websites the recommendations and submissions that go before cabinet. That information is available by request, but they have a proactive disclosure regime encouraging ministers to proactively make that information available for everybody to read. So, the very information that underpins cabinet decisions is disclosed.

This notion we have here that anything that goes before cabinet should be secret is a nonsense. The convention is that cabinet deliberations are held in camera and should be kept undisclosed, but as to the information on which cabinet bases its decision, there is no reason why anybody else cannot and should not have access to that. That is what happens in New Zealand and it works very well. That is what I would like to see in South Australia, because it would make for much better decision-making.

Let me give an example: the decision to double the size of the desal plant, one of the costliest bungles in this state's recent history, was taken when I believe the cabinet knew there was no sound case to make that decision. The federal Attorney-General said as much. The federal Attorney-General, after the fact in his investigation, said that there was no business case. The reality is that, more recently, we have had organisations such as the CSIRO tell us that water could be produced in South Australia via other methods—methods that were being promoted by the opposition at the time—at about half the price. That information was available to me as the shadow minister at that stage, yet the government denied it. If we had decent access to government information, I believe the decision to double the size of the desal plant would never have been taken; that very costly blunder would never have occurred.

A more recent example is the activities on South Road. We all recall that the highest priority was down at Darlington. As soon as the then federal opposition said they would put funds into that particular project, the government said, 'No, no, no, our priority is further up: it is between Torrens and Torrens. That is our top priority. The cost-benefit analysis says that is where we should be spending the money,' and they had a political argument in the run-up to the last federal election. Again, the public of South Australia have been kept in the dark. None of the information supporting those claims by this government has been released, yet hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money has been spent on that project and the community never has the opportunity to make an assessment about the wisdom of doing that.

Those are just a couple of the problems we have with freedom of information in South Australia. There is no such thing as freedom of information. We do have a culture that has developed within the bureaucracy. I think the flames of that culture have been fanned by a government that is intent on maintaining as much secrecy as they possibly can. That is the reality of where we are in South Australia.

The further reality is: that is why we have the abysmal level of decision-making in South Australia, because it is not subject to scrutiny by either the opposition or the general public. The information which would allow those outside of cabinet to apply some level to it is kept secret; that is the reality. It makes for bad government, and I would argue that it is high time that this parliament addressed this issue because it will make a huge difference to the way this state is governed.

I commend the member for bringing this matter to the house. As I have said, it is but a small step down the path that we need to take. Any step that will open up access to information is a good step, and I commend the motion to the house.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (10:50): I also rise to support the member for Hartley on his excellent bill. As a first-term member, I think it is most impressive that he has hit the ground running, and has identified what he sees as weaknesses in the way in which government is handled and the way in which information flow actually occurs to all members.

I want to take on one individual case about an FOI in my contribution. I have a variety of experiences, like most members in this chamber would have: some relatively quick responses, some rather slow, and some which are downright disgraceful—I think that is probably the best way of expressing it. In my case, I sought information on a bill that was before the house some time ago, the Commissioner for Kangaroo Island Bill introduced by minister Rau. In preparation for what a Liberal opposition position on that bill would be, I sought information from the Kangaroo Island Citizens' Jury, which had been established by minister Rau and the KI Futures Authority—

Mr Williams: Paid for by the taxpayer.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Paid for by the taxpayer—in the thought that, 'Okay, I want to see some of the background work on that.' I was not necessarily interested in the financial transaction, but for me it was on the work that it was intended to do and what the recommendations from it were. I lodged an FOI on 22 May. The bill had been introduced and it was long time before the debate was to occur, and a long time before I thought the bill would reach its conclusion in this place. We had to wait months for a response. It was on 3 September that my office forwarded through to a staff member within Department of the Premier and Cabinet who was involved in this, saying it had been 3½ months since we had lodge the request for information. The reply we received was:

That application has not yet been determined. I am, however, working on it at the moment and I hope to have a response to you shortly.

That was after 3½ months. By that time, I had already started a contribution on the bill. We had done that on the day before parliament rose for the winter break, late in the afternoon, and unfortunately after the member for Finniss, by prearrangement, was not in the chamber and was not here to be involved. We had another six weeks or so, so I thought, 'Okay, we still have the time and opportunity; we will get the information back before parliament recommences in early September,' and that is why we put the request through in the hope that the information came through.

We received a response on 3 September saying the response was a couple of weeks away. The amazing part was that it was not until 4 November that the information finally came through. There were 12 documents; nine of those were provided in full, and the other three were not in full as some individual components were removed, which I understood and accepted. But, that was after the bill had passed.

It intrigues me that on the basis of what I consider to be a relatively important bill—one on which the member for Finniss has basically defined himself in the last six months, and which is a very important bill for his local community—but the information that we required to ensure, from an opposition perspective, that we could have a worthwhile contribution to the debate; consider amendment requirements; put forward a strong case; ensure that we expressed the community's thoughts; and ensure that the work that had been done before the introduction of the bill, via the citizens' jury, was used as part of the debate, did not come through.

I found that extremely disappointing, and easily consider it to be a disgraceful situation and an absolute flaunting of where the situation should be. As I understand it, an agency has 30 days to determine a request. It took us 3½ months to find out that it was still a couple of weeks away, and it took another two months to come through. That emphasises to me more than anything that the member for Hartley, in introducing this bill, is just in his cause, and this parliament does need to ensure that we get an improvement. If we want to ensure that South Australians have confidence in the process of government, the availability of information is a key component of it. I hope that in this situation, where we are putting forward very valid concerns in support of a good bill, we actually get support from the house. I look forward to its passage.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (10:54): I also rise to support the member for Hartley's bill. As a follow-up to the member for Goyder, quite frankly I am disgusted with the amount of information that is unable to be obtained in this state. I believe that an evil culture pervades this state to the extent that information is hidden from those who seek it, whether they be MPs or whoever, and all sorts of obstructive things are put in place when people try to obtain that information. The member for Goyder raised a good point in relation to the citizens' jury on Kangaroo Island and the information that he tried to obtain. He of course obtained the information after everything was cut and dried and finished. That is the disgusting part. I also have no doubt that this was all contrived. A group of people on the island were completely conned about this from day one and were sold a pup. They were sold a pup. Nothing has changed my mind on that.

It was disappointing that the bill went through the upper house, and I have made a few comments about that. I have also put in freedom of information requests to the Kangaroo Island Futures Authority. That apparently sits under DPTI, yet whenever I put in applications they say there is no information available. If you go to the Attorney's department you also get back a nil response. Who is trying to hide this material? Why are they trying to hide it?

Mr Williams: They know they got the decision wrong.

Mr PENGILLY: Yes. Quite rightly, the member for MacKillop says that they got the decision wrong. Hear, hear to that! Why on earth do they try to delay, make excuses, not deliver the goods and continually frustrate members of parliament in their attempts to get information? It is freedom 'from' information—that is the word that should be there. It is despicable.

As I said, I am not sure why this had taken place. I have my suspicions. In relation to the applications that I have made for information from the Kangaroo Island Futures Authority, I am pretty sure that they have a fair bit to hide and they do not want to be caught out. I am going to take it further. I have every intention of pushing this to the nth degree, because things need to be outed properly. If necessary, those involved need to have the full weight of the law come down on them. It may take a while to achieve that but I am like a dog with a bone in this regard. I am not going away. The member for Hartley's bill is a useful exercise in achieving that.

I know there are some members in this parliament who put in copious freedom of information requests. They do not always get what they want, but occasionally something useful surfaces and outs something that needs to be outed. I wait with interest to see where the government goes on this: whether it wants to keep things secreted away and continue to play the game of withholding information from members of parliament who, by the very nature of being elected by the people of South Australia, have a right to much of this information. And I am not talking about confidential business arrangements that for obvious reasons need to be commercial in confidence.

I have made applications to local government authorities in my electorate and, once again let me say, some are much better than others. The Alexandrina Council is expert—it is very professional, it comes up with the goods, there is no beating around the bush—as is the Victor Harbor council. However, let me tell you: trying to get information out of the Kangaroo Island Council is another thing entirely. I hope that may change with a newly elected body there and that there may not be some of the activities that have taken place. I look forward to seeing the debate come to a close on this bill and a positive vote being accorded.

Mr SPEIRS (Bright) (11:00): To begin:

Freedom of Information Act. Three harmless words. I look at those words as I write them, and feel like shaking my head 'til it drops off. You idiot. You naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop. There is really no description of stupidity, no matter how vivid, that is adequate. I quake at the imbecility of it.

Those were the words written in the memoirs by the Rt Hon. Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1997 to 2007, who, writing in these memoirs, has spoken of the introduction of the UK's Freedom of Information Act as being one of the greatest single mistakes he made as prime minister. Forget the Iraq war, forget the drunken spending that reduced the country to its knees when the global financial crisis struck; no, Tony Blair names the Freedom of Information Act as his most cataclysmic error. That is a shame, is it not? What a shame!

Governments go down the track of introducing legislation like freedom of information acts and, in doing so, surround themselves with words and rhetoric, such as 'accountability', 'openness and transparency'. They want to throw off the shackles of secrecy and be much more open, but often in reality governments seem to struggle with what that means. Tony Blair claims that the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act in the UK prevented his government from having frank and fearless advice from public servants and inhibited his ability to make proper decisions. Again, I say: is that not a great shame? I do not think it is.

I think the Freedom of Information Act is a very important act which aims to give people confidence in the way that public administration is carried out but, unfortunately, it seems to be doing exactly the opposite in South Australia because the negativity that surrounds so many freedom of information requests when they enter the public domain through the media or through this place, and the difficulty that both members of the public and members of parliament seem to be having in gaining information through the Freedom of Information Act, does quite a bit, I think, to undermine the credibility of politicians, the credibility of public administration and indeed the credibility of the way democracy works in South Australia.

We hear a huge amount from the state government on values. We have the values that were developed last year by Change@SouthAustralia and the Office for the Public Sector. We hear a lot of this rhetoric about how important it is and how the Premier wants to do government differently. Since the day he came to office in 2011, he has talked about his desire to do government differently, to open up government and to have a conversation with the community. You can hear all these words and metaphors ringing in your ears, but is that the reality confronting people when they want to get information out of government? I think not.

In reality, if government is working well, the freedom of information approach should not always be required. There should be situations when you can pick up the phone or write a letter directly to a minister or a senior public servant and ask for information. The confidence should exist between both sides of politics, and between members of the public and public administrators, that they can do that and actually get information.

Information should not need to be sought using Freedom of Information Act approaches; instead, it should be freely available, whether that is by a phone call or a letter, or equally just because information is placed in the public domain on the internet, etc., as a matter of routine course around particular projects, policies and government business. Again, as we know, that just does not seem to be the case, so people are pushed down this freedom of information route.

I had an example just a couple of weeks ago, a local government example, when I was approached by a member of my community who had gone to the City of Marion asking for some information about a local park being redeveloped. The council said to this person, 'The easiest way to get that document is through freedom of information from your local member of parliament.' So, instead of the council just serving up that piece of material, it was directed through my office and became a much more bureaucratic process. These sorts of things continually occur at both local and state tiers of government.

We saw recently the South Australian Ombudsman hand down his audit report into the way freedom of information rules were being adhered to by state government, and I think that was one of the catalysts for the member for Hartley's amendment to the Freedom of Information Act. The Ombudsman in South Australia drew to our attention a great number of instances where he had real concern about the way ministers and senior public servants were executing the Freedom of Information Act. He had a range of worries around the way that was happening, and that certainly was one of the reasons I felt compelled to support the member for Hartley in his introduction of this piece of legislation.

I think it comes down to a situation, shown up by the Ombudsman's report, that leads us to ask: can the government be trusted with adhering to the Freedom of Information Act, can they follow things through in the way they should, and can they actually deliver on the clauses and requirements of the act? From my own experience within the public sector, I would say that it is challenging for public servants sometimes when confronted with freedom of information requests. Not only is it very time consuming and takes you away from your day-to-day business as you do this, but I think it does, in the minds of many public servants, discourage them from putting things into writing that they might otherwise do.

That being the case, it should still not create a situation where public servants, senior bureaucrats and ministers feel that because this act is in place they cannot put things into writing. As part of good quality public administration and the provision of frank and fearless advice, it should be something that people are confident to do and should not worry about getting out into the public domain. If good decisions are being made by government, and those can be backed up with a good solid evidence base, it should not be something that governments should be fearful of. It does beg the question: what has the government got to hide by creating delays and being so apprehensive about releasing certain pieces of information through the freedom of information process?

In the United Kingdom, there appears to have been a move away from taking the freedom of information process away from government and putting it in the hands of an independent information commission. I am always very hesitant about suggesting the creation of further bureaucracies, but that might be something we need to look at in South Australia. Should freedom of information be controlled within departments, or should it be something that is taken out of the hands of departments and put into the hands of an independent information commission which can cut through the bureaucracy and has the independence and capacity to do so, to work with public servants to get the information that people are after and bring it out into the public domain?

It is something that seems to be working in the UK; it was obviously something that Tony Blair hated. Again, political leaders might not like these things, but it is part of democracy, it is part of an open and transparent state, and it gives people confidence in public administration. The member for Hartley's bill seeks to create further checks within the system to encourage people to treat the Freedom of Information Act accurately and effectively so that it can fulfil its aim of getting information into the hands of the public, open government to correct scrutiny and hold the government to account, as it should be and as it should be comfortable in being held to account as well. So, I commend the bill to the house and I sincerely hope that all members of this place support it.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (11:10): I too rise to support an excellent private members' bill put forward by the member for Hartley regarding the Freedom of Information Act. I think what it has highlighted on this side is that our newly elected members have a great capacity for a bill like this. I think all of them need to be commended. They are having an excellent input into debate, putting up bills and motions, and I think this is another fine one that typifies the new team that have entered parliament. So, not only congratulations to the member for Hartley but congratulations to all of the new members for their input. I think they are commonly known as the rat pack. Is that what it is, member for Finniss?

Mr Pengilly: Yes.

Mr WHETSTONE: Good. I completely agree that the current system needs to be changed for the betterment of those seeking access to information. All too often we have experienced the poor side to this process. The FOI Act is legislative recognition of the need for democracy to be supported by a government guarantee that it will hold all information for the public's interest. The objects of the act are set out in section 3:

(a) to promote openness in government and accountability of Ministers of the Crown and other government agencies and thereby to enhance respect for the law and further the good government of the State; and

(b) to facilitate more effective participation by members of the public in the processes involved in the making and administration of laws and policies.

I note the annual report of the FOI shows that about $10.8 million has been spent processing applications in the past year, so that cost is up by about 6 per cent. However, the number of applications processed has fallen by about 8 per cent. More than 40 per cent of FOI applications are rejected or only released in part, while fewer applications are being processed, but the cost to taxpayers to do it has increased. In May of this year, the South Australian Ombudsman tabled a report entitled, 'An audit of state government departments' implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 1991 (SA)'. This audit was of 12 government agencies during the preceding year and there were a number of interesting findings in the report that certainly raised some eyebrows and raised many questions.

The report provided 33 recommendations, and many include extra training and resources. We have heard the government's position on this, it is content to throw its hands in the air, but that is simply not good enough. The Ombudsman found in the audit that most of the agencies are not coping with the volume and complex nature of the recent FOI requests. Six of the 12 agencies failed to determine over 50 per cent of the access applications within the time frame required by the act. Most of the agencies do not understand how to apply the exemptions and the public interest test under the act, and the agencies' chief executives are not providing FOI or pro-information disclosure leadership. In nine out of the 12 agencies there is no directive at all from the chief executive, senior management or the minister about the operation or implementation of the act. Only one agency stated that it has ever released an exempt document, despite the discretion to do so under the act. The Ombudsman stated that:

There needs to be an integrated approach to information access in this state, which includes FOI and privacy; proactive release of information…and necessarily, records management.

Of most concern was that the Ombudsman found that it is commonplace to provide copies of FOI application determinations and documents to their minister to get the green light prior to the finalisation of the access requirements. He found that FOI officers may have been pressured into changing their determinations. That is something that really is concerning. This is certainly a major grey area. The Ombudsman said that if a ministerial decision or direction is involved it should be clearly set out in the agency's determinations.

Over the years, I have had some really good assistance from FOI officers, but I have also, too, encountered reluctance within the system. One example is a request that came back as having too many documents that fitted within the scope and obviously diverting an agency's resources unnecessarily. That scope was narrowed with assistance, but it was apparently narrowed so much that there were no documents available for that request. One minute we have a request that is way to open and wide, too many documents, so we narrow the request and all of a sudden there are no documents. Again, it is eyebrow raising and it raises questions about exactly what are we hiding, where is the transparency, and how can we go from too much to nothing with a similar request?

I fully support the amendments to the FOI Act 1991 proposed by the member for Hartley regarding a person giving improper direction or influence in respect of an agency's decision regarding the FOI application and to amend a record and have access to documents. The amendments will also make it an offence if an accredited FOI officer fails to report to the Office of Public Integrity a suspicion that such a direction has been given.

Another issue with the FOI process which I have experienced is the continual failure to meet deadlines within a time frame. What is the point of setting a time frame when you do not meet it? In many cases, there is no courtesy shown by that department, or that FOI officer, just making a simple phone call or pushing through a quick email to say they are having difficulty or that the time frame needs to be extended. There is always that application or that appeal that has to be put in, and it is creating headaches at both ends, that is, the request and the provision of the FOI. It is something that an FOI officer is unable to do, is afraid to do or has been directed not to do. It then takes more paperwork and time to find out why the FOI determination is late. That could be avoided with simple contact between the officers.

In 2012-13, the percentage of applications not determined within the 30 days for DEWNR was 101.2, for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet 99.2, for the Department of Treasury and Finance 74.6, DMITRE 63.3 and DECD 61.6. Five of the agencies failed to determine over 50 per cent of their applications received in the 2012-13 financial year within that 30-day statutory time frame. That really does justify the member for Hartley's amendments to overhaul the FOI process.

According to the Ombudsman's report, the reasons identified by the agencies to the audit for failing to determine their applications within that time frame were: lack of resources—so obviously budgetary issues or staff issues; waiting to receive advice or documents from different sections of the department; negotiating with the applicant; seeking legal advice; seeking ministerial advice; and/or the 'other' box. Obviously, the 'other' box is quite large.

The other reasons submitted by the agencies included receiving multiple applications at the same time. I understand that many individual MPs put in applications when there is an issue of common concern. We are all busy, whether we are in government or in opposition. We are all busy; we do not have time to confer with every one of our colleagues that we are looking for a determination or looking for more information. People must understand the complexity, size and breadth of the application. As I have said, one minute it is too big, the next minute there is nothing there. These are some of the issues: consulting with third parties; and slow or delayed responses from a third party consulted.

Once again, I would like to put my support on record for the member for Hartley's bill regarding the FOI Act. We need to see some improvement in this area and some better transparency within the sector. The people of South Australia expect that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is holding the government to account. The government should be open and transparent with their decision-making, it should be open and transparent with what it is spending taxpayers' money on and it should be open and transparent with all decisions that are made for the people of South Australia.

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (11:20): I rise today to also speak in support of the member for Hartley's freedom of information amendment bill. I take note that a number of the newer members of this place have spoken on this bill. I would like to say a number of the younger members of this place but, unfortunately, I cannot.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr WINGARD: You're right, I don't quite fit into the younger brigade. But, some of the newer members are younger and they have spoken on this bill, and I can see why, Deputy Speaker, because there is a frustration that comes with FOIs.

The principle of an FOI is to allow individuals to see what information government holds about them and to seek correction of that information if they consider it wrong or misleading. FOI enhances the transparency of policy making, administrative decision-making and government service delivery, and a community is better informed when they can participate effectively in the nation's democratic processes. That is the intent of the FOI.

Yet, we hear today, and hear regularly, of people putting in for FOIs and finding frustrations with the information, or lack thereof, that is returned. I heard with interest the member for Chaffey speak before me and talk about requests that are made through FOI and the delays and procrastination with a lot of this information that is looking to be retrieved.

It has come to my attention in my short time in this place that, when you do make a request for some information, you have to be thinking of every which way someone might stifle you from having this information when you make your request, so the requests take an extra amount of time to collate and put together, an extra amount of time to submit and, because you have to make so many assertions and so many exceptions to how this question might be interpreted and/or the information returned, you potentially end up asking for copious more quantities of information than potentially you would need.

Again, as the member for Chaffey and those before me pointed out, that adds a great deal of cost to this process and it does make it very difficult. What is more, when the information comes back, time is wasted and procedures are wasted to go through the information and to try to find the answer to the question you are asking. That process in my short time here, as I mentioned, I have found frustrating, and I know others have found it so as well; and it really does inhibit what we are looking for here, and that is the transparency and also the clarity of information from the government.

I was interested to hear the member for Wright talk from the public sector's perspective when they do have this information to give and are asked to give this information to a fellow member of parliament, the media, or anyone seeking some information. It does get very complex and very confusing for the person digging out the information because they are concerned how it is going to be perceived and how it is going to be used and, if pressure is brought to bear from outside sources, that is very much, in my opinion, unacceptable.

I talked about the reason for freedom of information, and another is the greater recognition that information gathered by government is at public expense and it is a national (or, in our case, state) resource and should be available more widely to the public. This is information that has been gathered by the public sector, a sector paid for by the public, so, ideally, this information is for them to access and be able to use. That is something I think we are perhaps glossing over here.

I do also note at this time, looking back over the history of this place and in doing some research on the late Bob Such and the great work he did in this place, a quote that I quite like and, probably unfortunately for me, in my short time it is one that sits with me as well. Bob spoke not of the freedom of information but the freedom from information. Again, it is interesting that some newer members here are finding this frustrating, and older members, including the late Bob Such, found it equally as frustrating.

On that point I again concur with the member for Hartley and support his amendment bill. It is something that has happened in the past and it is something that is still happening today. To make this information more readily available and more easily available would be greatly appreciated by those from the past and, indeed, those present.

The FOI Act also promotes government accountability and transparency by providing a legal framework for individuals to request access to government documents; this includes documents containing personal and other information such as information about policy-making, administrative decision-making and government service delivery. Individuals can also request that ministers or agencies amend or annotate any information held about them.

I spoke about journalists previously, and in a past life I worked as a journalist. When I speak to my colleagues, some from my previous life but also now, they still talk about the frustration of freedom of information. I have spoken about the time wasted with MPs looking for information and requesting information and I know that same problem rolls over to journalists: anywhere they turn, anywhere they look they feel themselves being blocked. It does add scepticism to journalists, I suppose. I can see why that happens when they are, in their opinion, asking genuine legitimate questions and their perception is that, through FOIs, they are being denied this information that should be made freely and publicly available.

It is incredibly frustrating and, for what it is worth, I know that it does make journalists dig even harder to try to find the answers. I suppose there are those out there who think that if they can make it hard they might walk away and, potentially, some journalists might, but the good journalists I know when they feel they are coming up against a brick wall will work harder and dig harder to find information.

I must say again that I think the member for Hartley has done an outstanding job in what he is endeavouring to do here: to make it illegal for a government minister or their staff from giving improper directions or influence to a government agency that has been served with a freedom of information request. We can probably all stand here and say there is no way that would happen and it would be very disappointing and appalling if it were to happen. However, there has been too much evidence over time (and, as I said, in my recent time in this house) to not make you feel like that does happen on occasions. It is very disappointing to even think that way but the evidence is there to potentially point to those situations arising.

In a national comparison of freedom of information laws, South Australia has often been referred to as the most secretive state in the nation after 12 years of this Labor government. I find that incredibly disappointing. I have looked across a number of spectrums in this place and at a number of measurables for our state and how we have performed and how we rate. I have talked about the premiership table before in this house and about the things where we need to be sitting at the top but, unfortunately, South Australia has just slipped to the bottom of that table when we are talking about economic management and prosperity for this state.

We used to be in the top three, taking on New South Wales and Victoria but now, sadly, in a lot of those key economic indicators we have slipped down to the bottom of the table and we are fighting it out with Tasmania and some of the regions like Newcastle, Wollongong and even the Gold Coast. We are not stacking up all that well—and I say that is after 12 years of this Labor government. Yet again, here we are with another measurable where South Australia is deemed to be at the bottom of the table when it comes to freedom of information laws and potentially being one of the most secretive in the country, and that is incredibly disappointing.

A recent report tabled in parliament about South Australia's FOI laws by the state Ombudsman stated that:

…evidence provided to the audit strongly suggest that ministerial or political influence is brought to bear on agencies' FOI officers, and that FOI officers may have been pressured to change their determinations in particular instances.

To have the state Ombudsman, Richard Bingham, saying that is really an indictment on South Australia. I think it is something that we in this house should all be very disappointed about. We should be looking to make amends to that sort of assessment of the way we are going about our business. Again, that is why I support what the member for Hartley has done here with this freedom of information amendment bill.

In the past there has been no criminal penalty for ministers and their staff to unduly influence the release of important documents that are in the public interest—that is until now with these suggestions. A breach of these provisions will incur large fines and criminal convictions for those found guilty of the offence. It will also direct the appropriate FOI officer to report any breach of the new law to the Office for Public Integrity for further investigation.

I will finish off right now to save it going on. I think it is important to reform this law, given South Australia's freedom of information laws. If the Weatherill Labor government is serious about accountability to the community and about transparency, I think it must support this bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.R. Kenyon.