Page 390 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 13 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The point he makes is fair - that it would be inappropriate for any agency to be deliberately withholding a decision on a remission in order to frustrate time. We can accept that, and I think that may need to be dealt with, or looked at later on. But at this stage I am not supporting Mr Humphries's proposal, because I think it goes too far and will result in something that the Liberals are generally opposed to, which is potentially a wasteful process and a process which does not properly address what is a user pays regime. So, I cannot support the amendments.
MS SZUTY (11.56): Madam Speaker, I speak in favour of Mr Humphries's amendment Bill. I feel that the intention of the Bill is good and that it will be of benefit to the wider community by allowing more and fairer access to ACT Government records. It seems particularly fitting in these hard economic times, with increased unemployment and underemployment, and recognised heavier burdens on community groups, that this Assembly give the term "freedom of information" real meaning.
Mr Humphries's amendment Bill gives what would seem to be an obvious right - the benefit of the doubt. If a person applies for information under the Act and is entitled to claim an exemption of fees, there should be no impediment to the processing of their application. Once a decision is made about eligibility for exemption, that information can be conveyed and any fee collected; but it should not interfere with the other process, the accessing of material under the Act.
I put it to members, Madam Speaker, that to make the processing of an application subject to another decision on remission or exemption of an up-front fee discriminates against those who would be unable to meet that cost. While we might find it hard to imagine that a sum of $30 or $40 could be that critical in a person's or group's budgeting, I assure you that it can be.
Canberra's welfare agencies have reported escalating calls for financial assistance, unemployment is high, and other indicators show that not everybody in the ACT is in a position to pay up-front fees and then wait for the eventual refund if they are successful in gaining a remission. Likewise, those who act in the public interest should not be penalised for putting their time and energy into following up an issue.
MR MOORE (11.58): Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to Mr Connolly and his objections to this Bill and the problems that it might create for the public servants who are preparing information on freedom of information requests, and I must say that I am not convinced by his arguments. He is saying that there will be work done and when people find out that they do not have access to financial support as far as the freedom of information request goes they are simply going to opt out. That may well be the case. His conclusion, therefore, is that a lot of work will be done and basically the taxpayer will pay for it.
My conclusion is different. My conclusion is that it will force the public servants who are dealing with the applications for funding to get their act together and make their decisions very quickly. That is what I think will be the effect of this Bill. I think that that will have an extra benefit for those who apply for freedom of information and also apply for the financial assistance. That being the case, Madam Speaker, I shall lend my support to Mr Humphries's Bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .