|
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
The
Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:20): I seek leave to make a brief explanation
before asking the Leader of the Government a question regarding freedom of
information laws.
Leave granted.
The
Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Section 54AA was added to the Freedom of Information Act in
2004 and came into force on 1 January 2005. That section relates to the
provision of information to the minister in relation to freedom of
information laws. The wording of section 54AA explains that it is intended to
enable a minister (meaning the minister responsible for the FOI Act) to
monitor compliance with the act and to assist in preparing the annual report
required under the act. Section 54AA also allows the minister to require by
notice in the Gazette the information necessary to enable that
compliance.
I
have received concerning information from various sources that ministers are
being tipped off about freedom of information requests from members of
parliament in the media before the information yielded by the request is
given to the member. I know of at least two of my own freedom of information
requests where the information concerned mysteriously appeared as a media
story featuring the relevant minister. The timing is far too coincidental
and, in fact, I have heard claims that ministers are deliberately going to
the media with members' FOI requests.
We
heard on the television news last night and we see on page 16 of the
newspaper today that the Rudd government is moving to 'turn around an
official culture of secrecy which has been steadily growing since FOI laws
were introduced in 1982'. Special Minister of State Faulkner said that the
idea that the best way to protect responsible government is by keeping
information about that government as confidential as possible has been very
slow to die.
On
28 November 2002 the minister said in answer to a question from the Hon. Rob
Lucas that he receives information in relation to FOI requests, namely, the
existence of their arrival. The editor of The Advertiser stated
in his editorial today:
Revered US President Abraham Lincoln once said, 'Let the people know the
facts, and the country will be safe.'
And he gave his endorsement to the federal government's transparency
measures as a step in the right direction. Yet an accredited freedom of
information officer recently told my office—I will not name the person
because I respect and want to protect the officer's integrity within the
Public Service—that the law requires them to forward all FOI
documentation to a minister a few days before the information is due to go to
the person who sought it. Our reading of the law is that it does not do that
whatsoever. My questions are:
1. What information does the
minister receive about each and every freedom of information request?
2. Has a directive or
protocol gone out to all accredited freedom of information officers?
3. Will the government
eliminate FOI application fees, as the federal Australian Labor Party
government is doing?
4. What was the rationale for
these guidelines, set by State Records in January 2005, and why were they not
put before the parliament?
The
Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for
Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:23): The honourable
member's problem seems to be that, on the one hand, he talks about the need
for the pubic to have information, but it seems that what he wants is
information that the opposition can release and pretend that it has some
secrecy value because it comes from FOI rather than the information itself
being released. Why else would it be a problem?
His
complaint seems to be that, if information being sought through an FOI is
released beforehand, it seems to kill his media opportunity. Is that really
what FOI is all about? Perhaps the game has been given away here, and perhaps
all the protestations from the opposition and others about FOI are really
about getting publicity for themselves under the pretence that if it is found
through FOI it must be deliberately being withheld.
An
honourable member interjecting:
The
Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It's about democracy. Well, Mr President, if information is in
the hands of government, what is wrong with government releasing that information? That seems to be the problem of the honourable member.
Let
me take another slant towards this FOI. I know the honourable member, my
opposite number, the Leader of the Opposition, is continually requesting FOIs
for a whole series of reports and consultancies which the government has
undertaken to develop policy. Of course, members opposite get these and
immediately try to pre-empt the government and try to pretend the policy is
really their own. Even though, of course, the government has established
these reports and set up these committees to receive advice, they try to
pre-empt them.
That is all part of the political system, and good luck to them if they can
get away with it, but let us not pretend that there is some magic in this
information, and let us have none of this nonsense that somehow or other this
sort of information is being withheld from the public. I think the honourable
member's question really gives it all away when he says what he wants: 'We
want to be able to get this information so we can release it and package it
up with the spin on it that we want to give, rather than the information
being given out.'
In
so many cases with FOI, a lot of the information which is being
sought—and to get back to the honourable member's question, obviously,
I see the requests that come through, because after all they are directed in
many cases through the minister's office, or the minister's office will have
the information—makes it quite clear from very many of those requests
that they are seeking information which is publicly available. What I can say
is that taxpayers are spending millions of dollars more than they were when
this government came to office in relation to all the employees who are now
involved as freedom of information officers in collating the massive increase
in the number of FOI requests we have. In this debate on FOI I think it is
about time we had some cost benefit analysis towards it, because we often see
these fishing expeditions, where you have hundreds of public servants
involved—
An
honourable member interjecting:
The
Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It's not secret government at all. You have hundreds of officers
just trying to collate the requests. They are just fishing expeditions, and
anyone who sees these requests would know that they are fishing expeditions.
I have always believed that, if a government commissions a report, once it is
completed and gone to government, then of course that information, which
ultimately the taxpayers have paid for, should be released, unless of course
it has some legal or other issues. Of course it should be out there, but what
has happened is that we have seen this enormous, massive increase in FOI
requests, which is adding millions of dollars to taxpayers—
Members interjecting:
The
Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: On the contrary. He says, 'Hard working opposition', but in fact
it is an incredibly lazy opposition, because most of this information is
available. The Hon. Mr Lucas is a classic; the sort of information he
requests in relation to salaries of members and staff is all provided in the Gazette
every year. Every single year on 1 July you will see in the government Gazette
the information that relates to ministers' staff and advisers, but that does
not stop members such as the Hon. Mr Lucas seeking to duplicate all that for
different periods of time.
Since this government has come to office we have changed the freedom of
information laws very significantly to increase the amount of information,
and the number of FOI requests provided under this government has grown by a
quantum change. What we see is the absolute laziness of some of those members
opposite who are not prepared to do their own research and who simply use
many of these exercises as a fishing expedition.
In
relation to the last part of the honourable member's question, where he was
asking about fees and what the commonwealth government might do, that is
clearly a matter for them and the minister but, from my perspective in
relation to fees, I think there has to be some limit, given that there has
been a massive escalation in the costs of dealing with these. It is about
time we had a cost benefit analysis as to whether all these exercises, which
are largely fishing trips, really warrant the massive increase in
expenditure.
Of course, MPs get them free anyway, but if every member of the public could
get these things for free there would be not only a massive increase in the
number of requests but also the cost to the taxpayer—and, ultimately,
it is the taxpayer who must pay the cost—would go up exponentially.
There are two sides to this story and, to go back to the point the honourable
member is making, if there is an FOI request of the government—and some
of the information might be held in the minister's office—of course the
minister will know that the request exists. If that information is released,
so what? Is that not the whole purpose of FOI? Is the honourable member really
saying that FOI should exist only to serve the media interests of
non-government members? I do not believe so.
|
