House: some information requests to come with a fee
The Government plans to charge money when responding to certain requests for public information, the House of Assembly heard.
The proposal drew swift comeback from Gitanjali Gutierrez, the Information Commissioner, who said that while some of the amendments would improve procedure, the imposition of a fee had been made without any formal consultation with her office or with the public.
Crystal Caesar, the Minister of the Cabinet Office, told MPs that “reasonable charges” were included in the Public Access to Information Amendment Bill 2024.
The minister said Pati, introduced in 2010, formed part of a “robust information rights framework that creates transparency and accountability”.
She said the fees proposed in the amendment, which were not specified in her statement, would limit time spent responding to requests and provide ”payments for requests where processing by the public authority exceeds this”.
She added that the Bill would “enhance cohesion and implementation of processes”, and update the functions of the Information Commissioner as well as information officers.
Ms Gutierrez responded that the limits proposed in the amendments would “restrict the public’s right to access information”.
She added: “Critically, it lacks important and well-established safeguards found in other jurisdictions that apply similar limits.
“The public have a right to know how these amendments will impact their rights under the Pati Act.”
Ms Gutierrez highlighted approval ratings for Pati under a 2024 survey, with 86 per cent of respondents saying the Act was important to them.
She said the fees proposed for requests estimated to take more than 16 hours would have to be paid before an information request was acted upon, or it would be turned down.
“If a public authority estimates that a request will take more than 100 hours to process, a public authority must deny the request,” she said.
“It must also stop processing a Pati request where it has exceeded 100 hours.”
Ms Gutierrez said she did not oppose time limits and a fee “in principle”, noting they were found in other jurisdictions.
“I am opposed, however, to the Government’s introduction of selective, piecemeal amendments.
“The resulting amendments tabled today fall short of the comprehensive and well-established legislative frameworks found in other jurisdictions that strike an effective balance between managing the burdens on public authorities with the public’s fundamental right to access public information.”
She highlighted the lack of safeguards such as waiving fees based on a requester’s financial status, or for requests of national importance, and said it risked promoting “poor practices” to justify requests getting turned down because of the length of time it would take to respond.
Ms Gutierrez said the amendments would put an extra burden on public authorities unless they came with training and support.
She added that the power to deny a request already existed where it would lead to “substantial and unreasonable interference” with a public authority’s work.
She said the establishment of “a centralised unit to support processing Pati requests could more efficiently eliminate many of the challenges identified by the Government”, and encouraged the public to “call for the Government to publicly consult on the appropriate limits amendments prior to setting any commencement date”.
The amendment follows a plan to potentially charge $60 an hour for Pati requests that require more than 16 hours of work, introduced by Vance Campbell, the former Minister of Tourism and the Cabinet Office, in June 2023.
Mr Campbell said at the time: “The reasonable charges for Pati concept will require the implementation of a fee structure and will thus ensure that at least some of the costs of responding to requests are recouped.”
• To read Crystal Caesar’s statement in full, see Related Media
You must be Registered or to post comment or to vote.
