Page 2569 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 24 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY: Mrs Carnell did; she interjected. Mrs Carnell said, "How often do you refuse access?". I said, "I am glad that you interjected, because I can tell you". We refused access in 3.3 per cent of cases. You refused access in 9.8 per cent of cases. In New South Wales there is a $30 application fee for politicians. They may choose to seek rebate on public interest grounds. They can get a maximum of 50 per cent rebate; whereas we grant full rebates, as we did in three politicians' cases out of seven. Precisely, we granted rebates to Mr Humphries on one occasion, to Mrs Carnell on one occasion and to Mr Kaine on one occasion. In Victoria, as I say, under the Labor Government, Mrs Carnell was right; there was a legislative provision which said that politicians got it for nothing. That was changed by the Liberal Government to say that politicians do not have to pay the application fee, but it specifically says that they do have to pay the processing and copying fees, and they can be quite high. In Queensland there is a $30 application fee and no remissions. Politicians are treated the same as everybody else. It is 50c a page.
Mr Humphries: For non-personal information.
MR CONNOLLY: For personal information it is not here either. If anyone wants to apply for personal information documents they will get them for nothing, but that is not what you are after. You are after Cabinet documents and what have you. You are after a free research service provided by the Government. Here, like everywhere, members of the public get access to their personal information for nix. So we are all the same in that respect. The issue is charges for politicians. As I say, in Queensland politicians are treated like anybody else. Western Australia is still sorting out the position. You are correct in saying that in Tasmania there does seem to be a free policy to politicians, but that is the only State which has that. The specific statement by Mrs Carnell that it was free in Victoria, as I have demonstrated, is at 180 degrees from the truth because the Victorian Liberal Government repealed that free access provision and replaced it with a provision which says that politicians have to pay the processing charges.
MR HUMPHRIES: Noting the Minister's "Mrs Carnell misled; therefore I am entitled to mislead" defence, I ask the Minister: Will he concede that the practices of other States are considerably more beneficial to the public interest argument for opposition members than they are in the ACT? If so, will his Government consider adopting the policy of any of these other States, if you like, referred to in my question, as a way of improving access to information by members of this parliament?
MR CONNOLLY: Would you like the Commonwealth position, which we have adopted? Would you like the New South Wales position, which has a maximum of 50 per cent rebate; whereas in three out of seven cases we have given you 100 per cent rebate? Would you like the Victorian position, which has the full charge for the processing fees, which, as I say, are often the most expensive? The $20 or $30 application fee is really neither here nor there, as Mrs Carnell was pointing out. The problem is that if you are after thousands of documents the clock ticks over for that processing and copying and that is the big charge. Would you like the Queensland position where, I am advised, politicians are treated the same as anybody else? In fact, the 1991 Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review strongly recommended that there be no public interest waivers, no remissions at all in Queensland.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .