Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Freedom of Information Amendment (Requests and Reasons) Bill 2015. I have to say up-front that I will not be supporting the bill, because I believe this is yet another example of poorly thought-through policy by those opposite. It has a very catchy title that few if any in this place or in this country would not automatically nod and agree with, but unfortunately, when you read the detail, it does not achieve this. In fact, when I read the bill and started to consider the implications of it, I thought of the Seinfeld episode where George Costanza does the absolute opposite. In this case, it is doing exactly the opposite of the stated intent of this, and I would like to spend the rest of this time going through exactly why this does absolutely the opposite of what the catchy Labor title implies that it might do.

This is clearly another example of the Labor Party coming up with, as I said, a nice, catchy, populist title and ideas that sound great in principle but generally fall far short of the laudable titles and implications behind them. There are generally two categories in my assessment of these catchily titled bills and ideas that come from the Labor Party. First are those that have the facade and, when you open the door or knock it down, have nothing behind it; it is simply a catchy title or a populist idea or thought bubble. Second, there is a far more severe category of great thought bubbles and catchy titles from the Labor Party: those which not only waste billions of the taxpayer's hard-earned tax dollars but, in the case of programs like pink batts, can actually cost lives. As Senator Macdonald has just very eloquently said, the Labor Party talk about accountability and transparency, but clearly, as the front pages of The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age show this morning, they talk the talk but they are not walking the walk, and they clearly do not practise what they are preaching.

Let us have a look at another example. When I was reading the bill this morning, really thinking about other examples that this clearly highlights, my mind turned to the Defence Amendment (Fair Pay for Members of the ADF) Bill 2014. I think all of those in this place will remember that bill that Senator Lambie put forward and that those opposite supported and voted for. Again, let's have a look at another nice, catchy title: Defence Amendment (Fair Pay for Members of the ADF) Bill 2014. Nobody in this place, and almost nobody in this country, would say that that is not a laudable and fair proposition: to provide fair pay for our defence personnel. But, as we unpicked it, we actually found out that the detail of the bill would have very unfairly disadvantaged all of our brave men and women in uniform because, far from the catchy title, what it actually would have done was to result in a significant cut not only in defence pay but also in allowances and entitlements. But yet again, those opposite supported a bill with a catchy title but, as George Costanza said, did exactly the opposite.

I am not sure what worries me more in the case of that bill and others like it and this one here today: firstly, did the ALP just read the title of the bill and say, 'Oh, that's a nice, catchy thing; I'm going to vote for it.'? Or secondly, did they read the bill and not understand the implications of the bill, that in fact it would do the opposite of what the title suggests? Or, thirdly—and probably the most worrying of all—did the Labor Party not only read the catchy title but read and understood the implications of that bill? As I said, there are three possible alternatives in that defence fair pay bill and I think it is exactly the same thing here today.

I would now like to go through why this is absolutely the opposite of what the title suggests. Let's have a look at the stated aims of the bill. First of all, the stated aim is:

… ensuring transparency and accountability are included within the framework of government decisions concerning freedom of information requests; …

That sounds pretty reasonable to us all. Secondly:

… allowing the public to view requests that have been made and the reasons why documents were or were not released; …

Again, that sounds pretty reasonable to me. Thirdly:

… allowing applicants seeking similar documents to build upon previous requests; and

reducing the duplication of requests.

Again, when you look at those three they sound pretty reasonable. But then you go on to read the detail of the bill and the bill actually achieves quite the opposite. Let me now go through and explain exactly why.

In practice, I believe this bill will compromise the effectiveness of the decision-making process under the FOI, not make it simpler or more transparent. It will not ensure accountability or transparency, the two stated aims of this bill. It will not reduce duplication of requests and it will not reduce the number of requests. But what it will do is impose further unnecessary steps and procedures into existing processes for access to government information under the FOI Act. It will also increase the costs and complexities of FOI processing and result in significant processing delays, thereby actually doing the opposite and making it longer, more complex and harder for people to get access to the FOI request and information.

That is slightly inconvenient for those opposite, but I will go through exactly how that occurs now. Currently, under section 11C of the FOI Act, government agencies and ministerial offices are required to maintain an online disclosure log. The disclosure log must either publish information made available in response to an FOI request or provide details on how the public may obtain that information. But the bill before us proposes a raft of amendments to section 11C, including removing the option of providing details of how the public may obtain the information and requiring the publication of the exact wording of the FOI request. It also requires publication of the statement of reasons concerning the decision to allow or refuse the release of the requested documents.

The logic behind these amendments is to provide the public with easy access to documents released under the FOI Act. Again, it sounds good but if you look at the detail then that is actually not what will result. These amendments remove the current flexibility in the system. The current legislation ensures there is no impediment for those who are interested in accessing that particular information, while at the same time not imposing an onerous administrative burden on the agency. But as we know, not all FOI requests are straightforward. It may not always be possible for an agency or minister to publish some documents in accessible formats on a disclosure log or convert the documents to an accessible format within 10 working days.

It will be government agencies who have to try to manage the fallout of the increased workload in processing FOI applications. It was Labor who introduced the current log requirements, together with an information publication scheme as part of their package of FOI reforms in 2010. At the time, Labor stated that these reforms were intended to reduce the number of FOI requests over time. However, again, the opposite occurred. As reported in the Hawke FOI review, implementation of the information publication scheme and disclosure log requirements have in many cases increased FOI-processing costs, with resources being diverted from other key areas to assist with FOI processing. As well as increasing the cost of FOI processing—again, the opposite of what Labor said the intent was—these Labor initiatives have not resulted in any reduction in the number of FOI requests received by agencies and ministers. Again, this is the opposite of what they wanted to achieve in 2010. In fact, since the Labor FOI reforms commenced in 2010, the number of FOI requests has increased from 23,605 in 2010 to 28,643 this year, a significant increase when their policy was designed to do the opposite just as today their policy is designed with a catchy title and to do one thing but again will result in the opposite and actually make it even worse.

This bill also requires agencies and ministers to publish the exact wording of FOI requests as well as provide a statement of reasons outlining the decision to either allow or refuse the release of requested documents. I have to ask: what is the purpose of asking busy government officials and offices to provide a statement outlining why the information was granted in full? This new provision on its own will impose a substantial additional administrative burden on agencies and ministerial officers and, given past experience with your last reforms, will result in even more processing delays in other aspects of FOI processing. Again, far from streamlining the process, their last reforms made it slower, made it harder and increased the number of FOI requests, and I would argue this new bill will do exactly the same—make it worse, not better.

Publishing the reasons for decisions will absolutely result in already overburdened agencies dealing with nearly 29,000 FOI requests a year, already struggling to manage the increased heavy workloads courtesy of those opposite, taking shortcuts and publishing reasons rather than making a decision based on the circumstances of the particular FOI request. Rather than taking the time required to fairly consider individual FOI applications, it will absolutely increase the temptation to template and rush these through to try to get through the burden. I think that would clearly make the quality of what comes out of these FOI requests less transparent, less considered and less in the public interest.

Senator Ludwig also states this measure will facilitate more practical use of freedom of information requests and will reduce duplication of requests. Senator Ludwig could not be more wrong in this respect. You only have to go back to the experience of the changes brought in by those opposite in 2010 and have a look at the evidence of what happened. There was a catchy title, but it was not delivered. In fact, the opposite has been delivered. Fast forward five years and there is another catchy Labor title and one that will clearly make things worse, not better—less transparent and less accountable. Conversely, the Abbott government is committed to a transparent, accountable and open government and we cannot support these amendments, because this will do the opposite.

The FOI Act is undoubtedly an important accountability measure that facilitates the open and transparent transactions and operations of a government, and this bill will increase the burden on government departments without any positive effect on FOI procedures. It certainly will not achieve the detail of the bill.

That brings me back to that Seinfeld episode and George Costanza thinking one thing—in this case a nice, catchy title that everyone would nod at and say: 'Yeah, that's really good and that's really important. Let's support it.' When you open up the detail and start to have a look at what is actually in the bill, it is absolutely the opposite of the title. As it was in 2010 as evidence of time has shown, this is just another rerun not only on FOI but across many other policy areas. Those opposite trot out wonderful populist ideas but rarely put the intellectual rigour and planning in place to implement sound public policy.

As for the Defence Amendment (Fair Pay for Members of the ADF) Bill 2014, which said that it was supposed to be fair pay, which everybody would assume to be increased pay, the detail was quite the opposite. Had it been passed by the lower house, it would have resulted in significant pay cuts from the new pay deal not only in Defence pay but also in all of their conditions and entitlements.

With this bill today, I see three options. One is that those opposite really do not care enough to read beyond a catchy title. They say, 'Yes, we're supporting fair defence pay,' or, 'Yes, we're supporting increased FOI entitlements. Look, we've got a nice catchy title here. We're supporting it.' Either it is just a catchy title and nothing else beyond, or they have actually read the detail of these bills and do not understand the implications, which is almost as concerning in this place, or they like the populist, catchy titles and the complete opposite impact inside, and they simply do not care about the implications. Whether it is pink batts or an NBN that was developed on the back of a coaster and has cost taxpayers millions, ultimately we have three options, and none of them, I think, reflects well on the state of public policy and debate in this place. If a bill that has a catchy title but does the complete opposite of what the title suggests is the best that those opposite can come up with for the people of Australia, either they have not read it, they do not care or they do not understand what is in it. I think that does not reflect well for this place.

It is for those reasons that I and those on this side will not be supporting this bill. While we, like those opposite, like a good, catchy title and believe in the importance of the FOI Act, this will make the situation worse and not better, with less accountability and less transparency for Australians. So I will not be supporting this bill.