Page 2568 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 24 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mrs Carnell: No; you said all.
MR CONNOLLY: The only exception, Madam Speaker, is Tasmania. The interesting one is Victoria. Mrs Carnell said that it is free in Victoria to members of parliament.
Mrs Carnell: Which it was until two months ago.
MR CONNOLLY: Ah; which it was until two months ago. So what Mrs Carnell meant to say was that it was free in Victoria for opposition Liberal members when a Labor government was in charge, but as soon as a Liberal government got in charge they stopped it being free for opposition members and they started to impose charges. So, Mrs Carnell, when you said, "It is enshrined in the legislation that it is free for members of the Opposition", what you really meant to say was, "That is what it used to be until my party colleagues changed the position". Madam Speaker, I apologise to Mrs Carnell. I should have been referring to what she meant to say because she clearly meant to say what was correct. The fact that she said something that was 180 degrees at variance from the position was merely a slip of the tongue.
Madam Speaker, the position in Victoria, as a result of the Liberal Government's amendments, is that members of parliament are exempted from the $30 charge, or the $20 charge, the flat charge, but the legislation specifically says that members of parliament are liable for the processing fees and the copying fees. They are, in fact, what is usually most expensive. We are quite low in the ACT. We charge only 10c a page for photocopying; whereas the charges in most other jurisdictions, to the extent that we have been able to find out, is in the order of 50c. In the Commonwealth the position is identical to the ACT; that is, anyone must satisfy a public interest test in order to get exemption from charges.
Mrs Carnell: What is the test?
MR CONNOLLY: The test is, "Is it in the public interest?", not, "Is it in the individual politician's interest?". In the 1992-93 financial year there were seven applications from members of the Assembly, in respect of which there were three grants of remissions of fees, so - - -
Mrs Carnell: How many knock-backs on information?
MR CONNOLLY: I am glad that you asked me that question, Mrs Carnell, because I can tell you. In 1992-93 - this will be tabled shortly as part of my annual report - we refused access in 3.3 per cent of cases. Access was refused under this Labor Government, under this awful, nasty, secretive Labor Government, in 3.3 per cent of cases; whereas under the open, accessible, user-friendly Alliance Government led by the Liberals, which was much more open than this Government, access was refused in 9.8 per cent of cases. I said that 10 per cent was the order of magnitude; but, more precisely, it was 9.8 per cent of cases. So, in effect, we have refused access to information at a rate that is one-third of the rate at which the Liberal Party refused access to information when it was in power.
Mr Humphries: I did not ask this question then.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .