Page 78 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 8 April 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
servants before the first Australian FOI Act saw the light of day. Freedom of information legislation was introduced to protect the three basic principles of democratic government - openness, accountability and responsibility. This is why we need to review regularly our own ACT freedom of information legislation, to ensure that it lives up to its reputation as a weapon against secrecy and bad government.
This particular Bill is designed to close a loophole in the Territory's own freedom of information Act, a loophole that can be, and probably has been, used to delay the processing of requests for access to government documents. Naturally, Madam Speaker, oppositions rather than governments have a greater interest in legislation of this kind. Indeed, in the last eight or so months, the Liberal Party, in opposition, has had recourse to the freedom of information legislation fairly frequently.
This Bill seeks to close two loopholes which have come to my attention over the past few months. Madam Speaker, under section 14 of the existing Act, a person may seek access to documents which are covered by the operation of the Act. Under section 59, a person may seek the review of a decision made by an administrator to deny, or partially deny, access to documents under the Act.
At present an application is not a valid application unless it is accompanied by a $30 fee, in the case of an initial FOI application, or a $40 fee in relation to a request for a review of an FOI decision. The FOI Act does, however, provide for a remission of the fees and other processing charges where the application concerns personal affairs or is in the public interest or, alternatively, the applicant is experiencing financial hardship.
It is interesting to note, Madam Speaker, that the standard form issued by the ACT Freedom of Information Office - an office, by the way, which I must put on record I have found unfailingly cooperative and helpful in dealing with FOI requests - has a section which states that applicants can tick a box saying either that the fee has been enclosed or that the applicant is seeking a remission of the fee on particular grounds which are set out in the form. In other words, Madam Speaker, the Government does not make any attempt to conceal the existence of the capacity for people to seek a remission.
The form at no point makes it clear, however, that applications are not valid unless they are accompanied by a fee or until such time as a decision is made to remit the fee. It is possible for a bureaucrat to delay indefinitely a decision on whether to remit the fee or not. I note that timing is a very crucial question in FOI applications, in many cases. I refer to an article in the Canberra Times of 26 December 1990 in which it was suggested in a report on the ACT FOI Act that there was a lack of resources for supplying information under the Act, and that, of the 216 applications for information handled between 11 May 1989, self-government day, and 30 June 1990, only 65.3 per cent were processed within the statutory time limit, which is an unfortunate event and one we should be paying some attention to in the coming months.
As soon as an application that is accompanied by a fee is received, the ACT FOI Office has an obligation to tell the applicant within 14 days that it has received the request, and within 30 days the office is obliged to inform the applicant of a decision on giving the applicant access to particular documents. But, if the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .