FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

The Hon. S.G. WADE (14:30): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Public Sector Management a question relating to the Freedom of Information requests.

Leave granted.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am aware of an incident where the details of a member in the other place were provided to third parties during an FOI consultation by the South Australian Film Corporation. In addition to revealing the name of the MP making the request to third parties, correspondence sent by an FOI officer at the Film Corporation also speculates as to how the information provided might be used. I am advised that this incident follows a similar experience by another member of parliament. Such revelation of the applicant, together with political speculation, could jeopardise the principal objectives of the Freedom of Information Act, namely, to:

...confer on each member of the public and on members of parliament a legally enforceable right to be given access to documents held by government, subject only to such restrictions as are consistent with the public interest and the preservation of personal privacy.

Given there is no legislative requirement to provide the personal details of an applicant to third parties during the consultation process, and it has not been the practice to do so, I ask the minister the following questions:

1. Is it now government policy to release the name of an applicant under the FOI Act to third parties when consulting on the release of documents for every FOI application, or does this policy only apply to MPs?

2. Does the minister consider it appropriate for public servants to speculate about the political intentions of MPs and to distribute that information to the community?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Public Sector Management, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for Gambling) (14:31): I thank the honourable member for his important question. To the best of my knowledge, I am not aware of these instances. I invite the honourable member to provide us with those details. I understand, in fact, that our office did receive a copy of a letter from Vicki Chapman, the member for parliament—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Try 'member for Bragg'.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The member for Bragg, I should say, Mr President. That was sent to our office, and our office has sent that to our agency for response. So, at this point in time, I do not have those details, but I invite the honourable member to provide us with those details, and I will be very happy to follow that up and provide answers to those questions.

However, I would like to note the increase in FOI requests that have gone on in recent years. In fact, the number of FTEs working on FOIs across the state government was estimated to be 41.7 in 2001-02, and it is now 63.8 in 2009-10—an increase of 53 per cent in the number of staff. The total cost of administering FOI for this state government has risen by 282 per cent since this government's first term of office. So, the total cost of administrating FOI: 282 per cent increase since we have come in to government. I am advised the administrative costs were $1.7 million in 2001-02 and were $6.5 million in 2009-10.

This massive increase is caused by a number of factors, but particularly the applications from MPs have increased significantly, and not just in number. It is clear that their breadth and complexity have increased as well. It is obvious that they are massive fishing trips.

The number of MP applications was 48 in 2001-02, and we had 1,816 in 2009-10—a 3,700 per cent increase. What we have to face is sending these FOI fishing expeditions off to the agencies to have more and more staff employed running around trying to collect and find information.

Many of them are just general fishing expeditions. They hope that, if they ask for enough information, they will find something somewhere they can bring back here and whinge about. It is an absolute disgrace that some members abuse this very important public process. It is a very important process in terms of government accountability and transparency, and it is something this government is extremely committed to.

We are a very open and transparent government. It is abuse of these sorts of privileges that really puts the system under a lot of pressure. We could be spending those funds elsewhere. More nurses, more police, more doctors and more services—that is what we could be spending that money on, rather than these wasteful and irresponsible fishing trips.

Having said that, I would welcome the honourable member providing me with those details. I will check the correspondence which we have received from Vickie Chapman which I have sent off to the agency, and I will check the advice I have yet to receive from the agency, and I am more than happy to bring back a response.