Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr MARK SPEAKMAN (Cronulla) [7.33 p.m.]: I support the Government Information (Public Access) Amendment Bill 2011, which will amend the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, which, in turn, repealed the Freedom of Information Act 1989 with the aim of achieving greater openness and transparency in government. The Government Information (Public Access) Act is due for a statutory review as soon as possible after five years from the date of assent to that Act, which means as soon as possible after 26 June 2014. The conclusion of that five-year review will be the time to consider whether the Government Information (Public Access) Act is meeting its policy objectives and whether we need more significant policy changes which will involve broad consultation and a detailed analysis.

In the meantime the bill before the House, which arises after a 1½ year use of the Government Information (Public Access) Act, has more modest aims: to finetune, tidy up and clarify minor aspects of the legislation to keep it operating smoothly until the macro review occurs as soon as possible after 26 June 2014. This bill is not all that the Government is doing on the front of government transparency. Goal 31 in our State Plan is the improvement of government transparency by increasing access to government information. As well as finetuning this Act, goal 31 will ensure that agencies comply fully with mandatory proactive release requirements under the Government Information (Public Access) Act.

The Information Commissioner is currently reviewing agency open access websites and will deliver a report to Parliament outlining the results. That report will act as a benchmark indicating the extent of agency compliance. Another aspect of goal 31 is to create better access to online information and to make real-time information about government services available to the public. As an example, the emergency wait website now delivers real-time information about emergency department waiting times in major public hospitals in New South Wales. The community can now access live traffic conditions on the Live Traffic website. That is what the Government is doing with goal 31. This bill will finetune procedure that underpins the substantive community right to access government information.

I will address some, but not all, of the amendments proposed by this bill. Schedule 1 contains a list of amendments to the Government Information (Public Access) Act and schedule 2 deals with amendments of other legislation. Schedule 1 [1] will confirm that the obligation imposed on agencies to provide access to their open access information does not require or permit the agencies to make that information available in a manner that would constitute an infringement of copyright. The next set of amendments relate to items [2] to [4] in schedule 1. Publication guides that agencies are required to prepare will be referred to as agency information guides to better reflect the content of those guides. Item [5] provides for the time when an agency is required to include details in its disclosure log about an access application made to it by reference to whether an objection has been made to the inclusion of information in the log.

Item [6] provides that an agency is not required to include information in its disclosure log about any application, certainly personal information about any individual, whether or not the individual is an applicant. Items [7], [20], [24], [26] and [27] will standardise certain time frames. Item [13] will confirm that an agency may require an access applicant to provide proof of identity as a precondition to providing access to the government information that is being sought if the access application involves certain personal factors about the applicant. Items [14] to [18] will enable a person whose private information might be disclosed to object to the inclusion of that information in an agency's disclosure log, even if the person is not the access applicant.

Schedule 1 [12] will provide for information that has to be given by an agency about those objection rights. Item [19] will enable an agency to refuse to provide access to government information if the access applicant has already been provided with the information under the Government Information (Public Access) Act or the former Freedom of Information Act. Item [22] will confirm that an internal review is not available in relation to a review of a decision of a member of a Minister's personal staff. Item [23] recognises that an internal review by an agency is not required before the Information Commissioner can review a reviewable decision if an internal review by the agency is not available to the aggrieved person.

Item [25] provides that no fee is payable for reconsideration by an agency of a decision, including by way of internal review, pursuant to a recommendation of the Information Commissioner. At the moment a $40 fee is payable for an internal review by an agency carried out pursuant to such a recommendation. That fee will be done away with. Items [28] and [29] will update references to reflect the fact that the Government Information (Public Access) Act is administered by the Attorney General rather than the Premier. Item [32] will provide that there is no conclusive presumption of overriding public interest in relation to the disclosure of a spent conviction as defined in the Criminal Records Act 1991 to the person who is convicted. Item [33] will confirm that the requirement for an agency to consider whether to waive legal professional privilege in relation to government information sought under an access application is limited to situations where the application is made to the agency that has the privilege.

Item [34] enables the Government to make regulations of a savings or transitional nature. There are savings and transitional provisions in item [35] and regulations are enabled by item [37]. Schedule 2 will bring four sets of amendments. Schedule 2.1 will update an outdated reference to a provision in the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 that appears in the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998. Schedule 2.2 will amend the Criminal Records Act 1991 and will provide that it is not an offence for a public authority or other government agency that has a record of a spent conviction or an authorised officer of the authority or agency to make information about the conviction available to the person who was convicted. Schedule 2.3 will amend the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 and enable regulations under that Act to declare:

(a) a specified public sector agency is not to be regarded as a separate public sector agency and instead is to be regarded for the purpose of that Act as part of or included in another specified public sector agency, or

(b) a specified office, branch or other part of a public sector agency is for the purposes of that Act to be regarded as being a separate public sector agency to the public sector agency of which it forms part in respect of specified functions that it exercises.

Finally, schedule 2.4 will correct an inconsistent use of language in the Privacy Code of Practice (General) 2003. This is a modest set of amendments. As soon as practical after June 2014 there will be a major review of the operation of the Act and that will be when more far-reaching changes are made. The measure of the Government's commitment to openness and transparency is the fact that we have included goal 31 in our State Plan. I have spoken about the proactive steps that the Government is taking to ensure it is accountable, transparent and open. What is important is not only the substance of what the Government is doing but also the openness, transparency and accountability with which it is doing it. It is not only that it is governing in the public interest; it is seen in an open, transparent and accountable way to be governing in the public interest. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms MELANIE GIBBONS (Menai) [7.39 p.m.]: I thank my colleagues on the other side of the Chamber for their indulgence in allowing me to speak. I support the Government Information (Public Access) Amendment Bill 2011, which seeks to make a number of minor amendments to the Government Information (Public Access) Act that have been identified since the inception of that Act in 2009. The Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 was developed with the aim of achieving greater openness and transparency in government. Transparency is a goal that this Government is committed to delivering. These amendments were developed in consultation with government agencies and with the Office of the Information Commissioner and will serve to improve the public's access to information.

As citizens of New South Wales, we deserve the right to access our information from the government. Government agencies work to protect our information from public consumption. However, when we need to access that information we can get it via the Government Information (Public Access) Act, more affectionately known as GIPA. Every time we access a government agency, whether through our health system, enrolling in our public schools, or seeking assistance from our police, our information is stored and protected. It cannot be publicly disseminated or given out to anyone who asks for it. Most of the information stored is of no interest but when a situation arises where records need to be checked that information can be requested.

The Government Information (Public Access) Act is about promoting responsible and representative government that is open, accountable, fair and effective. It also intends to facilitate access to government information promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost. In fact, in most cases government information sought may be made available free of charge. One of the key amendments is item [10], which clarifies that any decision by an agency to waive, reduce or refund an application fee does not prevent the application from being valid. The existing legislation gives agencies the right to exercise the general discretion in section 127 in any situation where they consider a waiver or reduction to be appropriate. Clarifying that waivers or fee reductions can be made without jeopardising the application ensures a fairer system for all applicants. Additionally, this bill removes the requirement to pay a fee for an internal review based on the recommendation of the Information Commissioner. These reviews are available to all applicants who dispute the agency's decision.

Further amendments have been made by item [13] to clarify that agencies have the power to require an applicant to provide evidence about the personal factors of an application. This includes the capacity to require proof of identity when this is relevant to the agency's decision about the application. This amendment helps to ensure that the information being released is being given to the appropriate individuals and will stop abuses of the Act from happening. It is important to ensure the person applying for access to personal information has a relationship to the information requested. It must be in the public interest to disclose the information to that person. If the information does not relate to the person, privacy considerations mean there is a public interest against one person gaining access to another's personal information. So it is important that agencies are able to establish an applicant's identity.

Some of the minor amendments to the Act include renaming the Publication Guide the Agency Information Guide to better reflect its content. This relates to the key provisions of schedule 1 that agencies must provide a document that contains information about the structure and function of the agency. This information must be provided under the Open Access Information provision and as such must be made freely available on an agency's website for public consumption. Applicants will now be able to apply even if they are living overseas. Item [8] of schedule 1 to the bill removes the requirement that the postal address accompanying an application must be an Australian postal address. This will allow people living overseas to make an application under the Act without having to rely on the address of an Australian contact to do so.

Another amendment clarifies how agencies are able to notify the applicants. It provides that applications can be done by post, or by another method agreed between the agency and the applicant. This will make information access far more flexible to those requesting it. Sometimes an application is received but another agency has already provided the requested information. Item [19] gives agencies the capacity to determine an application by deciding that the information is already available to them. This will reduce multiple requests for the same information and unnecessary duplication of work for the Office of the Information Commissioner. Understandably, there is a lot of sensitive information held by government agencies, particularly personal information that should not be publicly shared without consent.

This bill makes several changes in relation to agencies' disclosure logs. A disclosure log contains information about access applications that agencies have granted when the agency considers that that information may be of interest to the public. Personal information of any kind will no longer be required to be recorded in an agency's disclosure log. Currently agencies are not required to place personal information about an access applicant on their disclosure log. Item [6] of schedule 1 to the bill extends this protection to the personal information of any individual. This is about protecting our privacy. Changes have also been made to the timings for agencies to place information on their disclosure logs. Subject to no objection, the agency can place information on the log when the access application is decided.

If there is an objection, there is no requirement for an agency to record information on the log until it has decided that there was no right to object or, if there was a right to object, until review rights have expired. These clarifications ultimately will help to protect the applicant's privacy and anyone else mentioned in the information. However, provisions have been clarified regarding the right to object. Item [14] makes clear that where information affects a third party's interests in certain ways—for example, where the information includes personal or financial information about them—they have a right to object to an agency placing that information on the agency's disclosure log. These amendments ensure a fairer system for all involved, to no-one's detriment.

The bill also clarifies the operation of the provisions in the Act that allow people to seek review of decisions. At present if an aggrieved person other than the applicant wishes to seek review by the Information Commissioner an internal review is required beforehand. However, in the case of decisions made by a Minister, a member of a Minister's staff or an agency's principal officer internal review is not available. Item [23] clarifies that an internal review is a precondition to third parties seeking review by the Information Commissioner only when internal review is available. When review is not available people in this position can seek review directly from the Information Commissioner.

Sometimes there is confusion or a lack of clarity regarding certain entities being separate to another agency. Item [37] will enable the Act to be applied in a more practical manner—for example, when a particular branch of an agency operates quite separately from the main agency. If they are prescribed as a separate agency they will be able to manage their obligations under the Act separately. For example, when entities are not part of the same agency they may be treated as one agency for the purposes of handling complaints and internal reviews. This will only improve the current Act and the way matters are dealt with. Lastly, an amendment of note is the changes made to information about spent convictions. At present there is an overriding public interest against disclosing this information under the Government Information (Public Access) Act and it is an offence under the Criminal Records Act 1991 to disclose this information without lawful authority. This amendment allows agencies to give spent conviction information to the person to whom it relates.

It is not always possible to see what issues may arise when a new bill is introduced but in this case we can be proactive and address these issues early on to improve the way the Act works. Each one of these amendments aims to enable a more practical and flexible approach to administering the Government Information (Public Access) Act. When it comes up for statutory review, due mid-2014, the entire Act will be investigated and further improvements may be made. But today this amendment bill should resolve a number of the minor and technical issues identified since the Act was introduced. I believe that the people of New South Wales deserve a fair and equitable system to access public information. At the same time there must be provisions in place to protect our personal privacy and ensure that the system is not abused. As we have said many times since our election to government, transparency is the key. This Government is committed to maintaining transparency at all times while making it simpler and far more flexible to access government information across all agencies. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr JAMIE PARKER (Balmain) [7.48 p.m.]: I am delighted this evening to address the Government Information (Public Access) Amendment Bill 2011. This is the second bill we have debated in this Chamber this evening relating to the portfolio of the Attorney General. The Greens welcome the bill. We appreciate that it proposes some amendments of a minor or technical nature, but I would like to raise a number of other issues relating to the operations of the Act and the bill and procedures regarding public access to information. The bill makes a number of technical amendments and clarifications following the first 1½ years of operation of the Government Information (Public Access) Amendment Bill 2011. The Greens support the bill, which clarifies aspects of the scheme in New South Wales. There is a range of different schedules.

Schedule 1 clarifies that the obligation to make information available does not mean that information has to be made available in a manner that would constitute an infringement of copyright. Under the current operation of the Act several circumstances have occurred in which interested parties or community members have been refused access to development application documents that would potentially impact on them on the grounds that the provision of such materials would constitute a breach of copyright. Clearly, changes are required to the Federal copyright Act, and I encourage the Attorney General to be proactive in those changes in order to allow relevant and useful public access to information in such situations.

The Greens also support changes that make it easier to access information that is subject to the Act. For example, item [8] of schedule 1 enables applications to be made by people who do not have an Australian postal address. Changes are also made to the Act to enable notifications to be delivered by email or other methods if the applicant agrees. That is a sensible change that reflects good practice and can help to make information more available. I have had experience with public access to information in my time in local government as the mayor of Leichhardt. When I was elected in 2008 our council abolished fees for applications made under the then Freedom of Information Act because we believed that the application fee was an impediment for citizens. We decided to test it.

Some people said that the removal of an application fee would result in a deluge of applications, but that was not the case. There have been a steady number of applications under the Government Information (Public Access) Act and the former Act, the Freedom of Information Act. We believe that it is a good way to help increase people's accessibility to information in their community. It also sends a strong message to the community that this information that we hold—which is specifically related to them or involved matters of importance to them—is their information and it is our responsibility to provide it. The financial impact caused by the removal of the application fee was minimal. The existing practice in most agencies is that proof of information is required for access to personal information under the Act. Schedule 13 confirms that an agency can require such information.

There is also a right created for individuals to object to their personal information being included in agencies' disclosure logs, regardless of whether the person is the access applicant. I note that schedule 1 [22] limits internal review of a decision if the decision has been made by the principal officer of the agency or a Minister or a member of his personal staff. This brings me to the issue of timing. One issue that many members would know I have been pursuing is Barangaroo. A whole range of Government Information (Public Access) Act applications have been made to the Department of Planning, to Roads and Maritime Services and to other organisations. I draw the attention of the House to a response to an application from the Office of the Information Commissioner, and I trust that the Attorney General will be able to address this issue. In response to a recent application for a review of a decision made under the Government Information (Public Access) Act the Office of the Information Commissioner sent an email, which stated:

The OIC's Casework & Compliance team currently has a full caseload of reviews and complaints.

One thing we find when we make an application to a government department is that invariably the department fusses for a long time and nothing much happens and then the department says that the information will not be provided. So we go to the Office of the Information Commissioner for a review of that decision. Many of the applications are time sensitive in that local residents, activist organisations, non-government organisations and community groups seek to obtain information in a timely manner in order to act on the particular issue. The email from the Office of the Information Commissioner continued:

Your request for assistance will not be allocated until a review officer becomes available. We are experiencing delays in allocating new cases and will update you if your request has not been allocated in the next six to eight weeks.

The office does not say in the next week, the next two weeks or the next month; it says that it will provide an update if the request has not been allocated in the next six to eight weeks. People are receiving generic emails from the Office of the Information Commissioner stating that the office will not even look at their application for probably two months and then the case will be allocated to a review officer. The review officer then has to review the application. I fully accept that the Government is on the ball in making these amendments to the Act, but is there an issue in the Office of the Information Commissioner?

Is the Office of the Information Commissioner under-resourced or unsupported? Does the Minister consider it satisfactory that generic emails—I assume they are generic emails because the email I have quoted from is written in a generic way—are being sent in response to applications? Is it the fact that the Office of the Information Commissioner is regularly asking people to wait up to two months just for the allocation of a case? It is not asking people to wait while the case is reviewed or an investigation completed, but for the case to be allocated to an officer. If that is so it is a matter of concern. Incidentally, the email from the Office of the Information Commissioner stated:

We apologise for the inconvenience caused by this delay.

That is very helpful. The email continued:

Other review options

In addition to your right to an external review by the Information Commissioner, you have a right to apply for an internal review by the agency who made the original decision under the GIPA Act—if you have not already done so—or for an external review at the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT).

An external review by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal is a very difficult and complex process. The email continued:

To apply for an internal review, please contact the agency who made the original decision. You have 20 working days after the notice of a decision has been sent to you to ask for an internal review, subject to any extensions granted by the agency. Please note that if a Minister or the principal officer of an agency made the original decision, you cannot ask for an internal review.

There are other options available. The Attorney General might say go to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal or have an internal review. But the Office of the Information Commissioner is where people should go for a review of a decision made under the Government Information (Public Access) Act, and it is taking up to two months just to get a case allocated. When the Attorney General was reviewing the Act did he look at resourcing issues and the implications for the staff of the Office of the Information Commissioner? This may well be a hangover from the former Government. Many people were trying to get information out of the former Government.

Mr Rob Stokes: We've all got a hangover from the former Government.

Mr JAMIE PARKER: I know—a very strong hangover.

Mr Ryan Park: We gave a lot out.

Mr JAMIE PARKER: I know, but it was to the developers: that was the problem. This is not a criticism of the staff of the Office of the Information Commissioner. I have dealt with the office in relation to requests for information and I know that the review officers are under the pump. However, I think that two months is an unsatisfactory time to wait just to get a review allocated to a case officer. I thank the Minister, his department and departmental staff. I know the departmental officers are very diligent, working here late at night on this matter. I ask the Minister again if he is aware of these matters and to provide a solution so that we can have an open, accountable and transparent government in New South Wales and our local communities can have the greatest confidence and trust in our freedom of information system.

Mr GUY ZANGARI (Fairfield) [7.57 p.m.]: The Government Information (Public Access) Amendment Bill 2011 builds on the reforms introduced by the Labor Government under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009. The 2009 Act overhauled the Freedom of Information Act 1989, with the aim of introducing greater scrutiny and public access to documents relating to the workings of government. I note that the amendments contained in this bill are minor alterations to the instrument introduced in 2009. I acknowledge that the member for Toongabbie, Nathan Rees, introduced the 2009 reforms in his former capacity as the Premier and I note the fine work he did which resulted in the 2009 legislation.

As I have already stated, the 2009 legislation introduced a series of changes aimed at increasing the transparency and openness of State government. The Act required government agencies to allow the public access to information that they collect in relation to structure, governance and operational procedures and set out how such information could be accessed. Item [1] of schedule 1 of the bill clarifies issues relating to the information that may be protected by copyright rules or that may be sensitive to copyright issues. Items [2], [3] and [4] are cosmetic changes that alter the adjectival wording of the guide available to the public. It replaces the term "publication guide" with the term "agency information guide".

Item [5] of schedule 1 clarifies the requirements for recording information in the agency disclosure logs and item [14] gives affected individuals recourse to object to certain information being included in the register. Item [7] is another cosmetic change. I suspect it has been included to remove any ambiguity as to the time frame an agency has to declare commercial contracts that are valued at over $150,000. The changes have no material effect except to clarify the details so that people do not confuse calendar days with working days. Item [8] removes the requirement that a person making an access application is required to have an Australian postal address. Item [13] inserts requirements for an applicant to provide proof of their identity if they require access to information involving certain personal factors about themselves.

I have already touched on item [14] of schedule 1, which, in conjunction with items [15] to [18], sets out the mechanism by which individuals can object to the inclusion of information in the disclosure log of the agency even when that individual is not the applicant. Item [19] provides changes that I believe require further consideration. That item allows government agencies to deny a request for information if the applicant has already been furnished with the information concerned or under the repealed Freedom of Information Act 1989. My issue with this requirement is that it can hinder access to information that a person in distress may need to gain access to government services. For instance, a person who has been made homeless and requires assistance from the Department of Housing may need to regain access to certain information—whether it is medical records or information relating to extenuating circumstances—to prove the severity of their predicament to the department.

Another example is people who have lost their belongings in a fire. They may require access to information they have retrieved in the past to prove their eligibility for certain government services. Just because they were given access to the information in the past I do not see why they should be denied future access to the same information. People lose documents all the time. In some circumstances it may be through no fault of their own. So why should this provision deny them access to information which they clearly are entitled to? Without going through the rest of the legislation, it is clear the Government Information (Public Access) Amendment Bill 2009 introduced under the previous Government has delivered greater transparency and openness to the agencies in New South Wales. This legislation proposes minor tweaks to the 2009 legislation. It is an indication of how successful the Labor reforms have been. I do not oppose the bill.

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON (Camden) [8.02 p.m.]: I support the Government Information (Public Access) Amendment Bill 2011. The member for Balmain is a respected local government member and a good State member. I commend him for his support of this bill. It is obvious from his contribution to the debate that he has great knowledge of local government issues and issues upon which the amendments in this bill will have a positive effect. I commend the member for Balmain for his contribution, which I found very insightful. In that spirit I also mention the member for Fairfield, whose contribution was also positive. I do not want to mention anything negative, but it is the first time in 12 months that the member for Fairfield has said anything positive, and I thank him for that. I commend the member for Fairfield for his support of the Government and his acknowledgment of the need to amend the 2009 bill.

Mr Rob Stokes: What about me?

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON: I will come to the member for Pittwater. The bill aims to tidy up and clarify minor aspects of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 and to continue the smooth running of the Act. This Government prides itself on openness and transparency and strives to improve on these aims at all opportunities. The member for Menai elegantly addressed the Government's aim to ensure transparency in government and our willingness to do so. This bill is all about openness and transparency. Goal 31 in the Government's NSW 2021 plan to rebuild our economy, return quality services, renovate infrastructure, strengthen our local environment and communities and restore accountability to government is to specifically improve government transparency by increasing accessibility to government information.

At the risk of repetition, I reiterate that two key goals of the O'Farrell Government are to restore accountability and government transparency. They are two goals of which I am proud. Goal 31 is to make sure that agencies fully comply with the mandatory proactive release requirements under the Act. I commend the Government for its commitment as part of goal 31 to create better access to online information and in making real-time information about government services available to the public. The people of New South Wales can now access live traffic information on the Roads and Traffic Authority's Live Traffic website and real-time information about emergency department waiting times in major public hospitals on the NSW Health's emergencywait website.

With the Act having been in effect for roughly 18 months, minor issues have been raised by users of the Act in relation to its operation in practice. This bill aims to address these issues and has been developed in consultation with government agencies and the office of the Information Commissioner to continue the smooth operation of the Act. The Information Commissioner is conducting a review of agencies' open access websites, with its report and findings soon to be delivered to Parliament. I agree with the Hon. David Clarke that this report will act as a significant benchmark in the extent of agency compliance. The Government Information (Public Access) Act also will be due for a statutory review on 26 June 2014, five years after its assent. The review will consider whether the Act is meeting its policy objectives and if more significant policy changes are required.

Item [2] of schedule 1 to the bill will change the name of the publication guide that agencies are required to prepare, which contains information on the structure and function of the agency, the type of information the agency holds and how to access the information. This bill will change "publication guide" to "agency information guide" with the aim that this will better reflect the guides' content. Item [8] of schedule 1 will remove the requirement for an Australian postal address for an application so as to allow those living overseas to make an application under the Act. Schedule 1 [10] clarifies that an application is not prevented from being valid because an application fee may have been waived, reduced or refunded by an agency. Item [13] of schedule 1 is also a clarification of an existing requirement for an applicant to provide evidence of personal factors of an application and includes the capacity to require proof of identity when it is relevant to the agency's decision about the application. Item [19] of schedule 1 to the bill inserts new subsection 60 (1) (b1) to allow agencies to determine an application by recognising that the information is already available to the applicant as a result of another agency having provided it beforehand.

Agencies' disclosure logs contain information about information access applications that agencies have granted and whether the agency considers the information to be of public interest. The bill will make numerous changes affecting the disclosure log of agencies, including clarification of timing for agencies to place information on their disclosure log based on any objections and an applicant's rights to objections. The personal information of any individual will be protected. The bill will clarify that when information in certain respects affects a third party's interests the person will have a right to object to an agency placing that information on the disclosure log. Presently when a person seeks a review of a decision an internal review must be undertaken before a person other than the applicant can seek a review by the Information Commissioner. The exception to that is an internal review not being available for decisions made by Ministers, a Minister's staff or an agency's principal officer.

The bill clarifies in item [23] that an internal review is a precondition to third parties seeking review by the Information Commissioner only when a review is available. When an internal review is not available, people may seek a review directly from the Information Commissioner. Currently a fee of $40 applies to an internal review if that is recommended by the Information Commissioner. Item [25] of schedule 1 to the bill makes the right of review by the Information Commissioner free of charge. Item [32] of schedule 1and schedule 2.2 change the position in relation to spent convictions. Currently it is an offence to disclose this information without lawful authority. However, the bill will change that to allow agencies to give spent conviction information to the person to whom it relates.

The bill will allow entities to be declared separate agencies for the purposes of the Act, or for entities to be declared part of a public sector agency in relation to particular functions under the Act. Clearly, this bill will allow for more flexibility in the administration of the Act. It will allow for a more efficient and common sense approach to allowing access to government information by members of the public. This legislation reflects the Government's election commitments. It represents the Government standing by its word and allowing people to have a more streamlined path to accessing government information. In the 20 seconds that remain for my speech, I acknowledge our wonderful Attorney General and the great work that has been done in preparing this legislation.

Mr Ryan Park: Oh.

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON: I make no apologies to the member for Keira for acknowledging the hardworking staff who were involved in the preparation of the bill and thanking them for their wonderful work, in particular Angus King—who has nothing to do with my preselection—and Elizabeth Passmore of the department. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr CHRISTOPHER GULAPTIS (Clarence) [8.12 p.m.]: I support the Government Information (Public Access) Amendment Bill 2011. I commend the Minister for his commitment to improving public access to government information and for being an integral part of a progressive Government that is keen to get New South Wales moving. The purpose of the amendments is to remove obstacles in the legislation and to tidy up loose ends. I am pleased that the bill will receive bipartisan support. The objects of the bill are aimed at achieving greater openness and transparency in government. They are objectives that every democratic government aspires to and to which the New South Wales public is entitled. The bill will make it easier for people to access government information. For example, people who live overseas will be able to make an application under the Act without relying on the address of an Australian contact to do so. At present people who live overseas cannot make an application of their own accord.

An application will be valid irrespective of a decision by an agency to waive, reduce or refund an application fee. The bill clarifies proof of identity requirements that must be satisfied to ensure that privacy provisions are not breached but nevertheless provides an applicant with an opportunity to access government information. Taking away doubt and replacing that with certainty will assist to speed up applications for access to government information. Public interest matters are important. If we are to have open and accountable government we must have efficient access to government information. Other minor amendments relate to process, but even minor changes could have an important impact on people's rights. Third parties will be able to object to inclusion of information in agencies' disclosure logs when information relating to third parties is affected by an access application made by someone else.

Third parties who are aggrieved by a decision of an agency may apply directly to the Information Commissioner for review of the decision when no internal review process is available, such as when decisions are made by Ministers' officers. At present when a person requests the Information Commissioner to review an agency's decision and the commissioner recommends that the agency should conduct an internal review the applicant pays a fee of $40 for the internal review. The bill will remove the requirement to pay that fee and provide a legislated free right of review by the Information Commissioner. This bill will have a real and positive impact on a third party who genuinely is concerned that information concerning them should not be made public and who seeks review of an agency's decision.

The bill finetunes procedures underpinning substantive rights of access to government information. Clarification of certain minor aspects of the Act will enable the legislation to operate smoothly. By finetuning procedures in the Act the Government has provided a useful format by which citizens may access information. That, in turn, demonstrates the Government's commitment to transparency of government information. The New South Wales public deserves that standard of government service. This bill honours the Government's commitment to open and transparent government. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr TONY ISSA (Granville) [8.17 p.m.]: It gives me great pleasure to support the Government Information (Public Access) Amendment Bill 2011, which will make minor amendments to the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009. Earlier the member for Keira told me that the 2009 Act was introduced by the former Labor Government as part of its reform strategies but that the Act nevertheless requires amendment. The New South Wales Liberals and Nationals Government is willing to rectify the mistakes made by Labor by the introduction of this amending bill. In other words, my Government is committed to making the required changes to improve the legislation.

Mr Ryan Park: Don't be like that.

Mr TONY ISSA: The member for Keira told me that the 2009 Act was introduced as a result of the former Labor Government's reform strategies.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lee Evans): Order! I ask the member for Granville to confine his comments to the leave of the bill.

Mr TONY ISSA: I am responding to comments made by the member for Keira, who claims to always support transparency in government. I am pleased that he acknowledges the flaws in the 2009 Act. Consequently, I am sure that he will indicate his support for the Coalition Government's action to rectify those legislative defects. I just love the idea of the member for Keira admitting that the former Labor Government got it wrong. Schedule 1 will change at least 13 items in the Labor Party reform legislation of 2009. I do not have time to go through them all but I will refer to a couple of the changes. Item [2] changes the name of the guide from "publication guide" to "agency information guide" to better reflect its content.

Item [8] of schedule 1 removes the requirement that the postal address accompanying an application must be an Australian postal address. That will enable people living overseas to make an application under the Act without having to rely on the address of an Australian contact to do so. Item [10] clarifies that any decision by an agency to waive, reduce or refund on application fee does not prevent the application from being valid. The bill goes on and on. The bill extends protection to the personal information of any individual. Item [23] clarifies that an internal review is a precondition to third parties seeking review by the Information Commissioner only when internal review is available. At the moment a person seeking a review has to pay $40. This bill will remove the requirement for the payment of this fee.

Dr Geoff Lee: Saving people money.

Mr TONY ISSA: That is exactly right. The Government Information (Public Access) Amendment Act is due for statutory review as soon as possible after five years from the date of assent, which means as soon as possible after 26 June 2014. The Government has committed to review the Act to make sure it provides better services to the community of New South Wales. This is another commitment the Government has made to create better access to online information and to make real-time information about government services available to the public. The Government's commitment to transparency of government information is demonstrated by other steps we have taken to make government information more accessible to the people of New South Wales in a more useful format and in a more timely fashion. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr BRUCE NOTLEY-SMITH (Coogee) [8.22 p.m.]: I speak to the Government Information (Public Access) Amendment Bill 2011. One of the promises I made during my election campaign was that I would fight for transparency and openness in government. For too long people have seen government as a monolithic organisation— inaccessible and often frightening. One of the most frightening things is that they imagine government contains vast amounts of personal information gathered through various agencies and centralised in some Orwellian-like database. It was to address such concerns that the first Freedom of Information Act was enacted in New South Wales in 1989 under a Liberal government. Citizens finally gained an opportunity to inquire about personal information held by the Government and, if necessary, request corrections.

In 2009 this Act was expanded and renamed the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009. This name change was not just cosmetic; the Act was restructured to achieve greater openness and transparency in government. This Act has now been in effect for approximately 1½ years. Feedback during this time has seen the need for some minor issues to be addressed to further improve the practical operation of this legislation. Many joke that freedom of information really means freedom from information in practice. This is because there are valid reasons why information cannot be disclosed. However, where such decisions have been made it is vital that a robust review process be available. This bill clarifies the operations of the provisions in the Act that allow people to seek review of a decision not to grant access to documents.

At present if an aggrieved person other than the applicant wishes to seek review by the Information Commissioner an internal review is required beforehand. However, in the case of decisions made by a Minister, a member of a Minister's staff, or an agency's principal officer internal review is not available. Item [23] of schedule 1 clarifies that an internal review is a precondition to third parties seeking review by the Information Commissioner only when internal review is available. When review is not available people in this position can seek review directly from the Information Commissioner. Currently if a person asks the Information Commissioner to review an agency's decision and the commissioner recommends the agency conduct an internal review the person has to pay a $40 fee. Item [25] will remove the requirement to pay this fee, making the right of review to the commissioner completely free of charge.

I turn now to some of the other provisions contained in schedule 1 to the bill. Item [2] changes the name of the publication guide that agencies must produce to that of Agency Information Guide to better reflect its content. Item [8] removes the requirement that an applicant have an Australian postal address. This enables overseas residents to access information using the address of their country of residence rather than relying on the address of an Australian family member or friend. Item [10] clarifies that any decision by an agency to waive, reduce or refund an application fee does not prevent the application from being valid. Item [13] clarifies that agencies are able to require an applicant to provide proof of identify where this is relevant to an agency's decision. Privacy considerations make it imperative that personal information can only be released to the correct person.

Item [19] permits agencies to determine an application by deciding that the information is already available to the applicant because another agency has already provided it to them. Item [30] clarifies how agencies are to send notices, and will allow agreement between the agency and the applicant as to the preferred method. Item [32] will allow agencies to give information of spent convictions to the person to whom the information relates. Item [37] provides that regulations may declare certain entities to be separate from another agency. This will allow the Act to apply in a more practical manner, for example, when a particular branch of an agency operates quite separately from the main agency.

The amendments to the Act are modest and are designed to keep it running smoothly. Government transparency is something that must be monitored constantly and addressed. The Government Information (Public Access) Act is due for statutory review as soon as possible after 26 June 2014. That review will be the time to consider whether the Act is meeting its policy objectives and whether more significant policy changes are required. That review will involve significant consultation and analysis. For now, this Government's commitment to the ongoing monitoring of openness and transparency legislation is shown in this bill. I commend it to the House.

Mr ANDREW CORNWELL (Charlestown) [8.29 p.m.]: It is my great privilege to support the Government Information (Public Access) Amendment Bill 2011, which introduces a number of minor and technical amendments to the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009. Several amendments relate to the interaction between considerations of privacy and the importance of transparency in government information. It is important that government information generally be accessible and that the functioning of government be transparent. However, this should not come at an unacceptable cost to individual privacy. This bill includes some clarifications about privacy considerations that come into play when accessing government information. First, it clarifies that agencies can require proof of identity when considering the personal factors of an application. This could be very important—for example, if someone is applying for the records about a particular person held by the Department of Family and Community Services. Such information might be very sensitive and personal.

Certainly, all of us in this Chamber understand that dealing with Family and Community Services information and personal elements requires delicate handling. We must be sensitive to the needs of those who may be a complainant or plaintiff in a matter. An agency generally should not release information unless it has established that the person wanting access is the person to whom the information relates. If an agency establishes that an individual seeks access to their own personal information such an application usually should be granted. We are all entitled to know what kind and what extent of information the State holds about us. Therefore, this clarifying amendment makes sure that the Act will function as intended, and that agencies are in no doubt about that function.

The bill also changes the law to make sure that a person can access their own records of spent convictions. The law provides that many offences are spent after a certain period so that a person is not affected for life by something they committed many years ago after spending a significant period without committing further offences. The law protects people in this situation by making it an offence to disclose information about spent convictions without lawful authority and by preventing people from accessing those records under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009. However, the law does not contemplate that a person might want to access their own record of spent convictions. When the State holds such information, that person should be entitled to access that information. This bill changes the law to give effect to that change.

The Government Information (Public Access) Amendment Bill makes clear that third parties can object to the inclusion of information in agencies' disclosure logs where their information is affected by an access application by someone else, and that third parties who are aggrieved by a decision of an agency can seek referral directly to the Information Commission when no internal review is available, such as when decisions are made by Minister's officers. These changes are technical, but clarify the existence of important rights and may have a real and positive impact on the third party that is genuinely concerned that their information is not made public and wants to seek a review of an agency decision. The Government Information (Public Access) Act was about allowing the public access to information not readily available, but it certainly fits with the philosophy on this side of the House about being open—

Mr Paul Toole: Transparent.

Mr ANDREW CORNWELL: —accountable and, as my colleague the member for Bathurst said, transparent. Many of our Minister's officers place information on the website almost immediately after meeting with stakeholders. This bill is about making sure that people can have trust in government and that government is accountable immediately. The habit of the previous Government over 16 years was for decisions to be made behind closed doors. This side of the House does not believe and certainly does not support that kind of process. If the O'Farrell-Stoner Government can leave one great legacy of its tenure, it is that it will be considered a Government that not only is accessible and listens to people, but also is accountable and transparent.

That certainly is something I know all my colleagues on this side of the House hold dear. This is a positive amendment to the Government Information (Public Access) Act. It strengthens the Act and provides greater opportunity for the public to engage with government not just at the coalface and through media releases, but through the real genuine workings of government. The public will be able to see how government works, how the wheels turn and how the engine works at every single point, not just through media releases. Our Government is about substance, not spin. This reform to the Government Information (Public Access) Act is part of that process. It is my great pleasure to speak to the bill and to commend it to the House.

Mr GARETH WARD (Kiama) [8.35 p.m.]: Sunlight is the best disinfectant. When we look at the grubs opposite we know why. If there is one thing that sets us apart from those who sit opposite, it is transparency and accountability. Around the country at the moment people are watching Yes, Prime Minister. One could be mistaken for thinking that it was a documentary on the parliamentary Labor Party. The one thing we took to the last election that resonated with the Australian community—

Mr Ryan Park: What was it?

Mr GARETH WARD: —was that we will be a transparent and accountable Government. The fact that the member for Keira asks what it was shows the seriousness of the problem as those opposite do not recognise their own foibles. We want to ensure that we have a transparent Government. If nothing wrong is happening, there is nothing to hide. If there is no spending of $500 million on a Metro project without a single sleeper being laid, $100 million on the Tillegra Dam, $127 million on TCard or things of that nature, there is nothing to hide. Of course, those opposite have lots to hide. That is why we have had to introduce the Government Information (Public Access) Amendment Bill 2011, which provides for minor and technical amendments to the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 that were identified in the first year and a half of its operation.

Mr Ryan Park: Call for an extension of time.

Mr GARETH WARD: That might happen if the member is lucky. These small amendments will help make the Act more user friendly and will address some minor issues that have been identified. The bill clarifies amongst other things—

Ms Linda Burney: Nobody is watching at this time, Gareth.

Mr GARETH WARD: They certainly are not listening to you and they will not be for a very long time. When an agency waives, reduces or refunds a fee, the application can still be validly made and determined.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lee Evans): Order! The member for Canterbury will not incite the member for Kiama. He does not need encouragement.

Mr GARETH WARD: She is not inciting. Her presence does not have that much of an effect. Agencies can require proof of identity.

Mrs Barbara Perry: I didn't think you were like that. I thought you were a nice guy.

Mr GARETH WARD: Looks can be—

Mr John Sidoti: He is a nice guy. I'm sticking up for him.

Mr GARETH WARD: I am glad I have one friend in the House. It is just that he is on the other side. Agencies can identify whether identification is necessary, for example, when someone seeks access to personal information. Applications can be made from overseas addresses. The bill also addresses some inconsistencies with agency disclosure logs—for example, clarifying the right to object to information going on the disclosure log and not restricting access to people applying for access to information but to third parties whose information may be affected.

[Interruption]

The Parliamentary Secretary is not supposed to interject on one of his party members. These minor amendments will make it easier for agencies and the public to be clear about their position when using the Act. They also underpin the Government's commitment to transparency and accountability, to which I believe all members on this side of the House are committed. I refer now to some of the key provisions of the bill. I acknowledge the presence in the Chamber of the Attorney General, who is a most excellent, very diligent and hardworking Attorney General. Currently, the Act provides that agencies must have a publication guide that contains information about matters, including the structure and function of the agency, the kinds of information an agency holds and how to access that information. Item [2] changes the name of the guide from publication guide to agency information guide to better reflect its content. The bill clarifies certain aspects of the process for applying for access to government information.

Mr John Sidoti: Who wrote that for you?

Mr GARETH WARD: Some of us do not require that, member for Drummoyne.

Item [8] of schedule 1 removes the requirement that the postal addresses accompanying an application must be an Australian postal address. That will enable people living overseas to make an application under the Act without having to rely on the address of an Australian contact to do so. Item [10] clarifies that any decision by an agency to waive, reduce or refund an application fee does not prevent the application from being valid. Item [13] clarifies that the existing capacity of agencies to require an applicant to provide evidence about the personal factors of an application includes the capacity to require proof of identity when this is relevant to the agency's decision about the application. That is important in situations in which people apply for access to personal information.

If the information relates to the applicant there is a public interest in favour of disclosing it to that person. If the information does not relate to the person, privacy considerations mean there is a public interest against one person gaining access to another's personal information. So it is important that agencies are able to establish an applicant's identity. Item [19] permits agencies to determine an application by deciding that the information is already available to the applicant because another agency has provided it to them. Item [30] clarifies how agencies are to send notices under the Act: by post or by another method agreed between the agency and the person in question. The bill also makes several changes in relation to agencies' disclosure logs, which I mentioned earlier.

A disclosure log contains information about access applications that agencies have granted when the agency considers that that information may be of interest to the public. Item [5] clarifies the timing for agencies to place information on their disclosure logs. If no one objects to information being placed on the disclosure log, the agency can place information on the log when the access application is decided. If there is an objection there is no requirement for an agency to record information on the log until it has decided that there was no right to object or, if there was a right to object, until review rights have expired. Currently agencies are not required to place personal information about an access applicant on their disclosure log.

Item [6] extends this protection to the personal information of any individual. Item [14] makes clear that when information affects a third party's interests in certain ways—for example, when the information includes personal or financial information about them—they have a right to object to an agency placing that information on the agency's disclosure log. The bill also clarifies the operation of the provisions in the Act that allow people to seek review of decisions. At present, if an aggrieved person, other than the applicant, wishes to seek review by the Information Commissioner, an internal review is required beforehand. However, in the case of decisions made by a Minister, a member of a Minister's staff, or an agency's principal officer, internal review is not available.

Item [23] clarifies that an internal review is a precondition to third parties seeking review by the Information Commissioner only when internal review is available. When review is not available, people in this position can seek review directly from the Information Commissioner. At present, if a person seeks to have the Information Commissioner review an agency's decision, and the commissioner recommends that agency should itself conduct an internal review, the person has to pay a $40 fee for that internal review. Item [25] in the bill removes the requirement to pay this fee. This makes effective the free right of review to the Information Commissioner, which is an important part of this bill. The bill also standardises references to time and updates references to agencies and departments where restructuring has occurred.

Item [37] also provides that the regulations may declare certain entities to be separate to another agency. This will enable the Act to apply in a more practical manner, for example, when a particular branch of an agency operates quite separately to the main agency. If they are prescribed as a separate agency they will be able to manage their obligations under the Act separately. The bill also changes the position with regard to spent convictions. At present there is an overriding public interest against disclosing this information under the Government Information (Public Access) Act and it is an offence under the Criminal Records Act 1991 to disclose this information without lawful authority. Item [32] of schedule 1 and schedule 2.2 change the position so that agencies can give spent conviction information to the person to whom it relates.

Finally, schedule 2.4 to the bill includes a power to make regulations under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 to permit an entity to be declared a separate agency for the purposes of the Act, or to permit entities to be declared part of the same agency in respect of particular functions under the Act. This is similar to the regulation-making power under the Government Information (Public Access) Act. Again, this will permit a more practical and flexible approach to administering the Act. This Government went to the last election promising greater transparency and accountability, but it must be relevant to all of its applications. This bill seeks to improve the legislation to make it more flexible and appropriate for individuals. It is important that people can get access to information in a timely and responsible way. This bill seeks to clean up some of the anomalies that have been found over the past 18 months.

Legislation and the legislative process should be about making changes that are appropriate. Over the many years that this Act will operate there will be more changes to ensure that people get the access to government information they deserve. That is an important part of any democratic place. The Government must ensure that the people—who have the right to hold any government to account, be it the Liberal Party, the Labor Party or whoever may form government in the future—can get access to the information they need in a responsible and timely manner and that red tape does not unnecessarily tie people up. The Government must ensure that the community can get access to the information they need to pass judgement on matters that may concern them or the greater community in general. It is without hesitation that I commend this bill to the House.

Mr GREG SMITH (Epping—Attorney General, and Minister for Justice) [8.45 p.m.], in reply: I thank the members for Liverpool, Port Stephens, Myall Lakes, Bankstown, Tweed, Keira, Blue Mountains, Cabramatta, Cronulla, Menai, Balmain, Fairfield, Camden, Clarence, Granville, Coogee, Charlestown and Kiama for their contribution to this debate on the Government Information (Public Access) Bill 2011. I note the concerns raised by the member for Balmain and I thank him for raising them with me. While this bill attempts to make only minor and technical amendments to the current Act, at the statutory review in 2014 such concerns will be taken into account.

I am happy to now look into the issue of possible delays with the Office of the Information Commissioner. This bill affects minor and technical changes to the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009. The bill ensures that the process for agencies receiving and deciding on applications for access to government information will run smoothly. It also clarifies the position in relation to review rights and how agencies should deal with objections to make information public on agencies' disclosure logs. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.


Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.