FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (14:31): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management a hard-hitting question regarding the administration of the Freedom of Information Act.

Leave granted.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The Freedom of Information Act was reformed by the current government during its first term of office to support our commitment to openness and accountability. The objects of the act were specifically amended to emphasise disclosure over non-disclosure and ensure that information concerning the operations of government is readily available to members of the public and to members of parliament.

The changes adopted by this government include the removal of ministerial certificates that enabled ministers to veto release of documents and strengthening the powers of the Ombudsman to require agencies to release information as a result of an external review. Changes were also made to the cabinet exemptions to make sure that simply running documents past cabinet was not on its own enough to make them eligible for exemption. As the reforms of the Rann Labor government continue to set the standard for FOI across Australia, will the minister update the chamber on progress in administering these groundbreaking laws?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management) (14:33): Never before in the history of South Australia has so much information been available to members of the public. The level of transparency provided by this government would no doubt leave our founding fathers lost for words, but we have no shortage of words. The government maintains numerous websites across the various state agencies providing volumes of information about the operations of our various legislation and regulations.

Not only is Hansard provided in a timely manner online, but acts, bills and regulations can also be accessed through a website dedicated to South Australian laws. We have annual reports tabled in parliament and, of course, they are also on websites, and news releases and community information sheets are provided to the media and interest groups to keep them appraised of developments in policy and in cabinet decision-making.

The availability of cabinet documents was further enhanced with the introduction of the 10-year rule policy on 1 October 2009, when the government reduced the cabinet exemption from 20 years to 10. Since that time, over 354 cabinet documents have been requested under the 10-year rule, with 351 being made available either in full or in part. In percentage terms that breaks down to 99 per cent of documents released, 84 per cent provided in full and 15 per cent in part.

If all these many megabytes of information available online or through the 10-year rule are not enough to satisfy the curious, we have the freedom of information laws to provide access to documents held by the various government agencies and ministerial offices. In addition to the legislative amendments to the FOI that were mentioned by the Hon. Mr Hunter, this government has also introduced a raft of administrative changes, including the implementation of the Freedom of Information Management System, or FOIMS, in 2005. FOIMS is an across-government database for recording and processing FOI applications which has greatly improved FOI by agency since 2005.

All this freedom of information does not come free: there is a substantial cost to the taxpayer. The total cost of administering FOI for the state government, local government and universities has risen by 282 per cent since this government's first term of office, climbing to $6.5 million in 2009-10 from $1.7 million in 2001-02. For the state government alone, the cost of administering FOI has risen by 81 per cent in the past four years. The increase in cost appears to be attributable to four factors:

Applications from MPs have increased considerably and are time-consuming to determine due to their broad scope and complexity.

Reporting by agencies on the salary costs now includes staff involved in all FOI-related administrative tasks while, prior to 2005, the estimates related mainly to staff involved in the decision-making process.

There has also, of course, been an increase in public sector salaries of 30 per cent since 2001-02.

The seniority of officers working on FOI has increased in line with amendments made to the FOI act by the previous government.

So they are four factors that have contributed to that cost. While the state government, local government and universities are able to apply fees and charges to FOI applications, these barely cover the rising cost of their administration. The proportion of revenue generated from fees and charges in terms of covering costs has shrunk dramatically. It was $115,380 (around 6.7 per cent of total costs) in 2001-02 and it is now $127,637 (around just 2.5 per cent of total costs) in 2009-10.

If I can turn to just the total number of FOI applications to the state government, you can clearly see the volume of traffic has also increased. In 2001-02, applications numbered just 9,427. That number has risen by 29 per cent to 12,156 in 2009-10. The South Australian, commonwealth, New South Wales and Western Australian governments compile across-government statistics on FOI. Based on those statistics and the relevant population figures, South Australia receives, on average, twice as many FOI applications per head of population as the other jurisdictions.

We are often disparaged in the media each time an FOI request has been held up for further information or referred to the Ombudsman but, when you look at the release rate of 87 per cent in 2009-10, these incidents are a very small percentage of the overall total of FOI applications received. The wheelbarrow load of FOIs provided to the Hon. Mr Parnell alone, for example, has me worried, as the minister responsible for safe work, that some unfortunate government employee is at risk of permanent injury simply carting them around.

The number of full-time equivalents working on FOI across state government was estimated to be 41.7 in 2001-02 and that has grown by 64 per cent to 68.3 in 2009-10. Even information relating to the number of full-time equivalents dedicated to FOI applications received by ministers' offices and departments was applied for under FOI by a member of the opposition. I have to wonder whether the opposition is having a lend of us.

This government has been a champion of freedom of information. We are also mindful that in corresponding with the government there are individuals and companies who wish to protect their own privacy from the prying eyes of third parties. That is why the FOI system provides scope for balancing the need for transparency against the desire for privacy—privacy for reasons of commercial confidence in some cases and, in other cases, simply because individual South Australians might not necessarily want details of their interaction with the government provided to third parties—and rightly so, in certain instances.

Freedom of information is not absolute. That is reflected in the act and in its appeal processes, but I would resist those who want to unfairly characterise these proper procedures as an attempt by government to maintain an unnecessary cloak of secrecy. The government's proud record of reform in the area of freedom of information does not need to be FOI'd, Mr President: it speaks for itself.