Page 2592 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 24 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY: The administrative unit of FOI was contained within the Chief Minister's Department. The move of the FOI unit into my portfolio occurred only last year, and it occurred as a result of last year's annual report. One thing on which I would agree with Mrs Carnell is that last year's annual report did not show a good set of figures in terms of delayed applications. I think something like 28 per cent of applications last year had not been dealt with within 60 days, and that is clearly unsatisfactory. At the time I made some public comment that I thought that was unsatisfactory. I think I may have said that in the Estimates Committee when this issue was being pursued. As a result, we moved the FOI unit into an area where it was rather closely supervised by the administrative law section. This year's annual report, which will be forthcoming shortly, will show some improvement. The level of requests that have not been dealt with in 60 days is now back to 22 per cent from 28 per cent. Members could rightly say that that is still not as good as it should be, but it is trending in the right direction.
Last year, of 206 applications for access to information, waivers were made in 85 cases. Of seven applications by members of this Assembly for access, waivers were made in three cases - strangely, precisely the same proportion as for the general public. So members of this Assembly are treated in exactly the same way as members of the general public. A public interest test is applied and, strangely, in about 40 per cent of cases that remission is made. Last year fees were remitted for Mr Humphries in relation to one request, for Mrs Carnell in relation to one request, and for Mr Kaine in relation to one request. Of seven applications by members, remissions were granted in three cases.
Where is the drama? Where is the problem here? Applications under this Act are dealt with according to the Act. The public interest test which is stated to apply does apply, and it is made out in fully some 40 per cent of cases. There is hardly a problem. There is no change in trends in terms of a tightening-up on access to remissions. It has remained pretty constant over the life of several governments. The only trend change over several governments is that under this administration there is a much lower level of refusal. The 66 per cent as a highlight of applications granted in full, which Mrs Carnell referred to as the high water mark, was in 1989-90 - the first year of a Labor administration. The rate at the moment is running at 53 per cent. During the period of the Alliance Government, 1990-91, it was down to 42 per cent for access in full. So again, the only trend you can get from a look at the statistics of FOI administration over time is the trend that would indicate that things were rather tighter and rather more restrictive while the Liberal Party was in power.
There has been much bumf said about what is the situation in other States. Mrs Carnell made the bold assertion on the radio this morning, no doubt confident that no-one would contradict her, that there are no fees charged for members of parliament in Victoria.
Mrs Carnell: No; Matt Abraham said that. I did not say that.
MR CONNOLLY: Yes, you did, Mrs Carnell. My clear recollection is that you did. As authority, Mr Abraham cited a book by Mr Chadwick. Mr Chadwick's book, of course, is out of date. Politicians are charged fees in Victoria.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .