HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-09-16 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (FEES) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 27 May 2010.)

Mr KENYON (Newland) (11:20): The government opposes the opposition's bill to amend the Freedom of Information Act. The idea of this amendment has been pulled from the recent amendments to the commonwealth's Freedom of Information Act and, while the member for Bragg mentioned the commonwealth's FOI amendments, I can advise that these amendments come from the recommendations of the 1995 joint Australian Law Reform Commission and Administrative Review Council's 'Open government' report.

In this government's first term of office we introduced FOI reform amendments that not only delivered on many of the recommendations in that report but also went much further. South Australia is still the only Australian jurisdiction to have such a generous deal for members of parliament in providing a $1,000 threshold before they incur any fees or charges. While the commonwealth has committed to providing professional journalists with five hours of free FOI processing, this has not been extended to its MPs.

The member for Bragg has failed to convince this government as to why it should now single out another group for special treatment. The argument put forward is that professional journalists are responsible for keeping the public informed. Attention grabbing headlines and bold claims seem to be the important tools of trade rather than providing the public with factual information. The public gets factual information directly through FOI rather than through an intermediary and not a story designed to sell publications.

I also note that the proposed bill does not attempt to define 'professional journalist'. This will present difficulties in determining who is, and who is not, a professional journalist. The member for Bragg, in her speech supporting this amendment, made a number of statements that require correction. While the member for Bragg claims that less information is being released under FOI, I am advised that the statistics are clear: more information than ever before (not less) is being released. In 2000-01, 6,583 applicants received documents under FOI while in 2008-09 it was 9,805 documents—nearly a 50 per cent increase.

The member for Bragg also makes claims that the Ombudsman's annual report made mention of the over-application of the cabinet exemption. I am advised that nowhere does the Ombudsman make this claim. Last year this government made the bold step of reducing the cabinet exemption from 20 years to 10. South Australia is leading the way. The member for Bragg claims FOI officers are subject to a hugely oppressive list of guidelines. I am advised that there are five. FOI officers welcome the guidelines for the assistance they provide in applying the legislation. You cannot dispense with guidelines, it seems to me, but the member for Bragg may think we should.

The member for Bragg claims that the cost of applying for information under FOI for journalists is onerous. I am advised that in the last financial year the media made 81 applications and paid a total of nearly $2,000 in fees. The average cost per application of less than $25 is hardly onerous. The cost of administering each year in South Australia is conservatively estimated to be $5 million—South Australian taxpayers' money. Since the free processing threshold for MPs was raised to $1,000 in 2005, the number of applications from MPs has increased by 2,000 per cent. Applications from the media have dropped to be less than a third of their 2006 levels, yet information provided to MPs via FOI is regularly reported in South Australian media. It looks to me like the media and their professional journalists are already getting their applications for free via opposition MPs, which is quite enterprising really, isn't it?

Ms Chapman also alluded to the number of reforms in respect of the commonwealth FOI legislation and indicated she would say more about this at another time. I am not quite sure what that will be but, as I mentioned earlier, many of the reforms only just introduced by the commonwealth came into force in South Australia during this government's first term of office. One such reform was to abolish conclusive certificates. This government abolished them in 2005. This government did not wait nearly 30 years to introduce reforms to FOI, as did the commonwealth, so I reject the criticisms of the member for Bragg and point out that South Australia leads the nation in FOI reform, and others are trying to catch up.

This government can see no logical reason why it should agree to this bill, and the member for Bragg has provided no sensible reason why privileged access should be provided to only one interest group.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:24): I rise to support the member for Bragg and the Freedom of Information (Fees) Amendment Bill 2010. I think it is a bill that we need so that we can get access, or at least some more access, to information that we should be able to get, even at this stage.

The South Australian access to information held by government is provided under the Freedom of Information Act 1991. This provides a legally enforceable right by members of the public to have access to documents held by government, restricted by public interest exception and a preservation of personal privacy. There is a schedule of exempt documents including cabinet, Executive Council, intergovernmental documents and those affecting law enforcement and public safety.

There are government guidelines that are effective from 1 January 2005, which are on the State Records website, which include notifying the minister of any application which is 'significant and/or sensitive'. You have to question where the independence is with this.

Cabinet submissions and documents, pursuant to the Premier's announcement on 12 August 2009, can now be disclosed after 10 years. This came into effect on 1 October 2009, under schedule 1 of the act. A cabinet document less than 20 years old is an exempt document and, under section 20 of the act, the agency may refuse access solely on that basis. The announcement was a policy change only and there has been no legislative amendment to enforce this change. When the federal parliament amended their legislation to effect the release of cabinet documents between 20 and 30 years of the exempt protection, they did so by legislative amendment.

Almost contemporaneous with the Premier's claim to be in charge of an open and transparent government, and by publication in the gazette on 20 August 2009, minister Gago introduced regulations to exempt agencies in respect of the investigation of the Burnside Council. Under protection of this regulation are the investigator Ken MacPherson, the PIRSA department, the Minister for State and Local Government Relations and the Department of Planning and Local Government—regardless of whether the information was created and/or received before or after the commencement of the appropriate regulations.

Pursuant to an FOI application to ascertain who made the request for this regulation—as ministers Gago and Weatherill have claimed it was by Ken MacPherson, to protect people who may wish to give evidence to the inquiry but were fearful of retribution—no documents have been produced confirming this. As the inquiry, after approaching nearly $1 million in costs, is apparently closing, I will monitor the lifting of this regulation—according to the member for Bragg—for the broad exemption of these departments and offices.

On 27 May 2010 the member for Bragg introduced this bill to fulfil an election promise from the Liberal Party. The bill provides for the removal of fees for freedom of information applications submitted by journalists, if the application can be dealt with in less than five hours. The debate has been adjourned. Surprise, surprise! We believe the government will remain opposed to this bill.

In relation to the federal government approach to freedom of information, the Rudd Labor opposition claimed it would reform the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Commonwealth) 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 was modelled on the commonwealth legislation passed in 1982 and all Australian states and the Australian Capital Territory have adopted similar legislation.

A national consultation was undertaken for the release of a draft Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2009, which was ultimately introduced and passed in the federal parliament. Additionally, a separate bill providing for the Information Commissioner was also passed. I seek leave to conclude my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT