17376 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thursday 22 November 2012 __________ The Speaker (The Hon. Shelley Elizabeth Hancock) took the chair at 10.00 a.m. The Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country. PORTS ASSETS (AUTHORISED TRANSACTIONS) BILL 2012 SAINT JOHN'S COLLEGE AMENDMENT BILL 2012 Messages received from the Legislative Council returning the bills without amendment. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Notices of Motions General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) given. DISTINGUISHED VISITOR The SPEAKER: I welcome to the Chamber the Hon. Brian Langton, former Minister for Transport and former member for Kogarah. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Postponement of Business General Business Notice of Motion (for Bills) No. 2 postponed by Mr Paul Lynch. General Business Notice of Motion (for Bills) No. 3 postponed by Mr Paul Lynch. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION (PUBLIC ACCESS) AMENDMENT (REMOVAL OF APPLICATION FEE) BILL 2012 Second Reading Debate resumed from 22 November 2012. Mr GREG SMITH (Epping—Attorney General, and Minister for Justice) [10.10 a.m.]: The Government opposes the Government Information (Public Access) Amendment (Removal of Application Fee) Bill. The bill proposes to amend the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 to abolish the current $30 application fee imposed by the previous Labor Government for formal applications for government information under the Act. The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will listen to the debate in silence. The Attorney General has the call. Mr GREG SMITH: The second reading speech of the member for Blacktown on the bill states that removing the application fee will improve transparency and accountability. However, it is the Government's view that the bill is unlikely to achieve the goal stated in the bill's second reading speech. The abolition of the application fee will have a negative impact on agencies by increasing the number and scope of applications made. Application fees can be useful for agencies in managing applications for information. The impact on agencies as a result of removing the application fee will mean that applicants could also be disadvantaged by increasing the processing times, making it more difficult to access information in a timely manner. This means 22 November 2012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 17377 the bill will have an effect counter to the purposes that the bill seeks to achieve—that is, the bill will have the effect of undermining the transparency and accountability goals of the Government Information (Public Access) Act. The current $30 fee in New South Wales is not disproportionate to the fees that apply in other Australian jurisdictions. For example, in Victoria the current fee is $25.06; in Queensland, the application fee is $40.50, which may not be waived. Application fees under the Commonwealth Freedom of Information Act 1982 were abolished in 2010, but the Commonwealth Office of the Australian Information Commissioner has recommended the reintroduction of a discretionary application fee of $50 that agencies may impose on applicants who have not first tried to get the information informally. The Commonwealth Government has not yet responded to this recommendation. The Government Information (Public Access) Act allows New South Wales agencies to waive application fees and encourages the proactive public disclosure of government information by agencies. The Act also encourages agencies to informally release government information without the need for a formal Government Information (Public Access) Act application. In his 2009 review of the Freedom of Information Act 1989, the New South Wales Ombudsman rejected the abolition of freedom of information application fees because a free service would ignore the significant public resources that are committed to administering the system and could potentially lead to abuse of the system. That is what the Opposition wants: abuse of the system. I acknowledge that the Coalition policy document from 2008 includes a commitment to abolish fees for applications under the then Freedom of Information Act. Let me set the record straight: That commitment was made in the context of a broader commitment to improve accountability and transparency through better access to information. I note that the Leader of the Opposition has left the Chamber rather than listen to my speech to the second reading debate. The Government Information (Public Access) Act arguably promotes the wider goals better than the Freedom of Information Act did. As a result, the commitment that related specifically to the Freedom of Information Act is no longer relevant. The Information and Privacy Commission has indicated that it does not believe the bill will achieve its stated goal. It considers that any claim of accountability or transparency benefits achieved by the abolition of an application fee will be outweighed by the extra administrative burden placed on agencies by increased numbers of applications. The Opposition has decided to use an important piece of legislation as a political ploy. The purpose of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 is to increase transparency and accountability in Government activity. Clearly, the Opposition has resorted to political tactics by referring to previous Coalition policies and introducing these types of bills into the House in an attempt to bluff the public into thinking they relate to the same legislation when they do not. By doing so, the Opposition has failed to consider the substance and significant effect of such a bill. The Opposition's bill will have the effect of countering what the Government Information (Public Access) Act seeks to achieve, which is increased accountability, transparency and scrutiny of government in New South Wales. It is for these reasons that the Government opposes the honourable member's bill. Mr RON HOENIG (Heffron) [10.17 a.m.]: I have not seen the learned Attorney General thump a lectern since he appeared in the criminal courts of New South Wales when he was trying to have innocent people locked up in the State's institutions. As a senior member of the Bar, I know that the Attorney General understands the importance of democracy. This bill does more than just apply Liberal-Nationals Government policy. It relates to a significant feature of democracy in this State. I invite the House to turn its attention to a quotation from Andrew Puddephatt's work entitled, "Freedom of Expression—The Essentials of Human Rights", published in 2005. On page 128 he says: Freedom of information is an extension of freedom of speech, a fundamental human right recognized in international law, which is totally understood more generally as freedom of expression in any medium, be it orally, in writing, print, through the Internet or through art forms. This means that the protection of freedom of speech as a right includes not only the content, but also the means of expression. This bill proposes to make it easier and cheaper for citizens in this democracy to access government and publicly owned material. All we heard from the learned Attorney General was a response that I recall having heard many years ago in that famous television series Yes, Minister. Sir Humphrey Appleby stated in an episode about open government: Freedom of information. We always tell the press freely and frankly anything that they could easily find out some other way. 17378 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 22 November 2012 That is the only time the Attorney General believes freedom of information should apply. People are entitled to information without fee as long as the request is not unreasonable; they should not be required to pay for the first hour of government officials' time. Contrary to what the Attorney General said, this bill simply enacts an O'Farrell Government policy and its mandate. Because the Attorney General and other members opposite do not appear to know their own Government's policy I will enlighten them: The NSW Liberal/Nationals Coalition believes that the community has the right to openness, accountability and transparency when it comes to Government decision making and information. The NSW Liberal/Nationals Coalition commits to open government through the highest standards of public access to Government information, including the best practice in Freedom of Information (FOI) processes. I will not read the entire policy statement, but it concludes: Key reforms under a NSW Liberal/Nationals Government will be ... —Abolish FOI application fees. That is the Government's policy and it is part of its overwhelming mandate. I will read it again for the benefit of members opposite so that they understand the basis upon which the people of New South Wales supported them: Key reforms under a NSW Liberal/Nationals Government will be ... —Abolish FOI application fees. It is clear and concise. There is no qualification like that proffered by the Attorney General in his channelling of Sir Humphrey Appleby. It is without question that freedom of information processes, the Government Information (Public Access) Act and any other requirement to provide information is a nuisance to governments. No government likes the media or the Opposition demanding access to information that may be used to embarrass it or which may be misquoted. However, the difficulty facing the Government in opposing this legislation is that it merely expressly states what members opposite promised the electorate. One of the things that bring politicians into disrepute is that they will say anything to be elected but then when they are elected they pretend that they did not say something or they ignore it. Members opposite interject, but— The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Castle Hill and the member for Charlestown will come to order. Mr RON HOENIG: I will read their Government's policy statement again because members opposite seem to have forgotten what they promised. It states: Key reforms under a NSW Liberal/Nationals Government will be ... —Abolish FOI application fees. The Government is simply being asked to support legislation that will implement what members opposite promised the people of New South Wales.