|
 |
 |
|
Australian Press Council submission to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet on Freedom of Information (Fees and Charges) Amendment Regulations 2009. 18 January 2010 The Australian Press Council welcomes the opportunity to comment on the draft Freedom of Information (Fees and Charges) Amendment Regulations 2009. The Council notes that the Regulations will take effect from the commencement of any Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Act 2009. Accordingly, it is important to consider the proposed amendment to the Regulations in the context of the objects of the Bill for that Act. The Bill embodies a proactive stance to the availability of information held by government and the objects clause makes it clear that information held by government is a national resource and establishes the requirement that agencies publish information. The Council will make a separate submission to the Senate inquiry into the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2009, including comments on costs. In the meantime, this brief submission on the draft Regulations recommends that if the purpose of FOI legislation is to promote open, transparent and accountable government and to encourage citizens to take participate in public affairs, then the Government should follow the lead set by Tasmania in relation to charges in its recently passed Right to Information Act. Section 16 of the Tasmanian Act provides only for an application fee. There is no provision for fees for searching or for decision-making. Further, the application fee can be waived for applicants who are impecunious or who are members of Parliament applying in connection with their duties or who are applicants (such as journalists) who are able to show that they intend to use the information for a purpose that is of general public interest or benefit. Alternatively, if there are to be fees for searching, examination and decision-making, the Council recommends the approach proposed by the Solomon review of Queensland freedom of information legislation. It recommended that a fee be determined by the number of pages supplied rather than an estimate of time taken to provide the information. This would provide for greater consistency between agencies and create an incentive for agencies to improve efficiency in information retrieval. If charges for searching or providing documents are to be imposed, the Council welcomes the Government's proposal that they should not apply to documents that include personal information of the applicant. Citizens should be entitled to information about themselves and the proposal is consistent with the recommendations of the Solomon report. The Council also welcomes the proposal that charges should not apply where an applicant has applied but has not been notified of a decision on their request (or that the time has been extended) within the time periods set by the Act or, where the time has been extended, has not been notified of a decision within the extended time. The waiver of the fee provides an incentive for an agency to comply with timeframes and processes in the Act and some compensation to the applicant for delay. The proposal to provide a free period of search and consideration by an agency for journalists and other categories of people is welcome. However the periods specified for different types of applicant should be increased, in particular the proposed free period of five hours for journalists seems woefully inadequate. A study prepared for the Council in 2002 showed that the costs associated with applications were a major contributing factor to journalists preferring to rely on "leaks", which can be self-serving or misleading, rather than use FOI to obtain the full story. In conclusion, the proposed amendments to the FOI Act signal a change in philosophy in favour of disclosure of information to enhance our system of democracy and promote the view that government information is a national resource. The Council greatly welcomes that change but is concerned that it should not be counter-acted by excessively deterrent fees and charges. Instead, such imposts should be limited to very modest fees for applications and to charges that cover only the real costs of copying and transcription. See also Return to Documents with the |
|||
|
About the Council [ its history and benefits of self-regulation | Members] | |
|||
|
Last updated 3 February 2010 All material ©The Australian Press Council. Website Design, Construction & Maintenance by |
|||
icon require the Acrobat Reader, a Free Utility from Adobe. Click