John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)

—information that is held about them. If the State holds information about me as a citizen, I should have the absolute right to that information. That is a different issue from the other issue which is getting a lot of attention.

Certain rights have attendant responsibilities. Section 25 of the Bill deals with records relating to the costing by a public body of a proposal of a political party. In my view this is much more restrictive than is being represented and I am prepared to see that contested. On the matter of a fee, I think it is quite appropriate to have a set fee. Other speakers have made the point that it is very different for a newspaper to seek information as against an individual and there should be a difference in treatment. The individual seeking a particular piece of personal information should be treated in a sympathetic manner. Vexatious persons making hundreds of requests for information can cause a very large liability for the State. The fee should be designed to discourage a succession of requests under freedom of information. I note that the Bill proposes to deal with vexatious and frivolous queries.

If this limited protection is not introduced, no records will be created. Senator Mansergh spoke earlier in the debate about the requirements of history as opposed to those of journalism or the need for current information. Historical records will not exist as they did in the past. We had a very secretive society up to as late as the 1970s which was a by-product of our imperial past. When we were governed by another jurisdiction it was considered very unsafe to allow the natives to have knowledge of certain matters because information was power and as the natives could not be trusted to govern themselves information had to be kept from their scrutiny.

There was all-party support for the introduction of freedom of information and there is still all-party support for it. What is at issue is the detail in this Bill.