❓ Opposition questions the Attorney General's FOI compliance regarding diary/credit card details and response times. The AG cites an Information Commissioner's decision justifying refusals due to overly broad requests.
AnsweredQoN 755Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION — ATTORNEY GENERAL
My question to the Attorney General refers to freedom of information compliance. Following the Attorney General’s condemnation of the opposition’s legal and democratic right to hold the government accountable through the Freedom of Information Act, I ask — (1) How does the Attorney General justify his refusal to release his diary or credit card details under FOI legislation, given that at least three other government ministers have done so and that Labor ministers in the previous government routinely provided this information? (2) Given that the Attorney General is the minister responsible for this legislation and is the first law officer of the state, why has his own office breached the strict 45-day time line of the Freedom of Information Act at least four times in the past 12 months by more than 50 days in each case? Mr C.C. PORTER
My question to the Attorney General refers to freedom of information compliance. Following the Attorney General’s condemnation of the opposition’s legal and democratic right to hold the government accountable through the Freedom of Information Act, I ask — (1) How does the Attorney General justify his refusal to release his diary or credit card details under FOI legislation, given that at least three other government ministers have done so and that Labor ministers in the previous government routinely provided this information? (2) Given that the Attorney General is the minister responsible for this legislation and is the first law officer of the state, why has his own office breached the strict 45-day time line of the Freedom of Information Act at least four times in the past 12 months by more than 50 days in each case? Mr C.C. PORTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. (1)-(2) I draw the Leader of the Opposition’s attention to the Information Commissioner’s website and the decision reference D0172009, which the Information Commissioner gave on this very issue. Refusals to provide information have been given, but it is fair to put in context to the Leader of the Opposition that the refusals have not been blanket refusals. The refusals have been to acquiesce to requests that have been made because the terms have been so very expansive. The decision on the refusal that went the full distance was a decision of the Information Commissioner. It was the subject of a complaint and then the subject of a decision by the Information Commissioner on the complaint. The conclusion in that matter states — For the reasons given above, I find that the Minister has taken reasonable steps to help the complainant change the access application but that the work involved in dealing with the application would divert a substantial and unreasonable portion of the Minister’s resources away from his office’s other operations. Therefore, I find that the Minister’s decision to refuse to deal with the complainant’s access application under s.20 of the FOI Act is justified and I confirm the decision. The fact is that I get ridiculously expansive applications for access to diary periods when in a given two-week period the Information Commissioner, after his random look at my diary, has assessed that I am quite correct in refusing them. The Information Commissioner has assessed that there are very many people and third parties that I meet about whom I would be obliged to take a view on whether they want that information handed over, including people such as victims of crime and people who may not want their details handed over, and that the expansive nature of the applications that have been made to me are unreasonable. That is in black and white after a decision of the Information Commissioner. That was my starting position. Quite frankly, if I keep getting ridiculously expansive requests, either it will take a long time to respond to them or indeed I will refuse and they will go through this process. This is why there has been a 2 000 per cent increase in complaints from members of Parliament. If all those 2 000 complaints ended up with decisions like this, we would waste a great deal of the Information Commissioner’s time and the time of officers of this government.
(1) How does the Attorney General justify his refusal to release his diary or credit card details under FOI legislation, given that at least three other government ministers have done so and that Labor ministers in the previous government routinely provided this information? (2) Given that the Attorney General is the minister responsible for this legislation and is the first law officer of the state, why has his own office breached the strict 45-day time line of the Freedom of Information Act at least four times in the past 12 months by more than 50 days in each case? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. (1)-(2) I draw the Leader of the Opposition’s attention to the Information Commissioner’s website and the decision reference D0172009, which the Information Commissioner gave on this very issue. Refusals to provide information have been given, but it is fair to put in context to the Leader of the Opposition that the refusals have not been blanket refusals. The refusals have been to acquiesce to requests that have been made because the terms have been so very expansive. The decision on the refusal that went the full distance was a decision of the Information Commissioner. It was the subject of a complaint and then the subject of a decision by the Information Commissioner on the complaint. The conclusion in that matter states — For the reasons given above, I find that the Minister has taken reasonable steps to help the complainant change the access application but that the work involved in dealing with the application would divert a substantial and unreasonable portion of the Minister’s resources away from his office’s other operations. Therefore, I find that the Minister’s decision to refuse to deal with the complainant’s access application under s.20 of the FOI Act is justified and I confirm the decision. The fact is that I get ridiculously expansive applications for access to diary periods when in a given two-week period the Information Commissioner, after his random look at my diary, has assessed that I am quite correct in refusing them. The Information Commissioner has assessed that there are very many people and third parties that I meet about whom I would be obliged to take a view on whether they want that information handed over, including people such as victims of crime and people who may not want their details handed over, and that the expansive nature of the applications that have been made to me are unreasonable. That is in black and white after a decision of the Information Commissioner. That was my starting position. Quite frankly, if I keep getting ridiculously expansive requests, either it will take a long time to respond to them or indeed I will refuse and they will go through this process. This is why there has been a 2 000 per cent increase in complaints from members of Parliament. If all those 2 000 complaints ended up with decisions like this, we would waste a great deal of the Information Commissioner’s time and the time of officers of this government.
(2) Given that the Attorney General is the minister responsible for this legislation and is the first law officer of the state, why has his own office breached the strict 45-day time line of the Freedom of Information Act at least four times in the past 12 months by more than 50 days in each case? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. (1)-(2) I draw the Leader of the Opposition’s attention to the Information Commissioner’s website and the decision reference D0172009, which the Information Commissioner gave on this very issue. Refusals to provide information have been given, but it is fair to put in context to the Leader of the Opposition that the refusals have not been blanket refusals. The refusals have been to acquiesce to requests that have been made because the terms have been so very expansive. The decision on the refusal that went the full distance was a decision of the Information Commissioner. It was the subject of a complaint and then the subject of a decision by the Information Commissioner on the complaint. The conclusion in that matter states — For the reasons given above, I find that the Minister has taken reasonable steps to help the complainant change the access application but that the work involved in dealing with the application would divert a substantial and unreasonable portion of the Minister’s resources away from his office’s other operations. Therefore, I find that the Minister’s decision to refuse to deal with the complainant’s access application under s.20 of the FOI Act is justified and I confirm the decision. The fact is that I get ridiculously expansive applications for access to diary periods when in a given two-week period the Information Commissioner, after his random look at my diary, has assessed that I am quite correct in refusing them. The Information Commissioner has assessed that there are very many people and third parties that I meet about whom I would be obliged to take a view on whether they want that information handed over, including people such as victims of crime and people who may not want their details handed over, and that the expansive nature of the applications that have been made to me are unreasonable. That is in black and white after a decision of the Information Commissioner. That was my starting position. Quite frankly, if I keep getting ridiculously expansive requests, either it will take a long time to respond to them or indeed I will refuse and they will go through this process. This is why there has been a 2 000 per cent increase in complaints from members of Parliament. If all those 2 000 complaints ended up with decisions like this, we would waste a great deal of the Information Commissioner’s time and the time of officers of this government.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. (1)-(2) I draw the Leader of the Opposition’s attention to the Information Commissioner’s website and the decision reference D0172009, which the Information Commissioner gave on this very issue. Refusals to provide information have been given, but it is fair to put in context to the Leader of the Opposition that the refusals have not been blanket refusals. The refusals have been to acquiesce to requests that have been made because the terms have been so very expansive. The decision on the refusal that went the full distance was a decision of the Information Commissioner. It was the subject of a complaint and then the subject of a decision by the Information Commissioner on the complaint. The conclusion in that matter states — For the reasons given above, I find that the Minister has taken reasonable steps to help the complainant change the access application but that the work involved in dealing with the application would divert a substantial and unreasonable portion of the Minister’s resources away from his office’s other operations. Therefore, I find that the Minister’s decision to refuse to deal with the complainant’s access application under s.20 of the FOI Act is justified and I confirm the decision. The fact is that I get ridiculously expansive applications for access to diary periods when in a given two-week period the Information Commissioner, after his random look at my diary, has assessed that I am quite correct in refusing them. The Information Commissioner has assessed that there are very many people and third parties that I meet about whom I would be obliged to take a view on whether they want that information handed over, including people such as victims of crime and people who may not want their details handed over, and that the expansive nature of the applications that have been made to me are unreasonable. That is in black and white after a decision of the Information Commissioner. That was my starting position. Quite frankly, if I keep getting ridiculously expansive requests, either it will take a long time to respond to them or indeed I will refuse and they will go through this process. This is why there has been a 2 000 per cent increase in complaints from members of Parliament. If all those 2 000 complaints ended up with decisions like this, we would waste a great deal of the Information Commissioner’s time and the time of officers of this government.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. (1)-(2) I draw the Leader of the Opposition’s attention to the Information Commissioner’s website and the decision reference D0172009, which the Information Commissioner gave on this very issue. Refusals to provide information have been given, but it is fair to put in context to the Leader of the Opposition that the refusals have not been blanket refusals. The refusals have been to acquiesce to requests that have been made because the terms have been so very expansive. The decision on the refusal that went the full distance was a decision of the Information Commissioner. It was the subject of a complaint and then the subject of a decision by the Information Commissioner on the complaint. The conclusion in that matter states — For the reasons given above, I find that the Minister has taken reasonable steps to help the complainant change the access application but that the work involved in dealing with the application would divert a substantial and unreasonable portion of the Minister’s resources away from his office’s other operations. Therefore, I find that the Minister’s decision to refuse to deal with the complainant’s access application under s.20 of the FOI Act is justified and I confirm the decision. The fact is that I get ridiculously expansive applications for access to diary periods when in a given two-week period the Information Commissioner, after his random look at my diary, has assessed that I am quite correct in refusing them. The Information Commissioner has assessed that there are very many people and third parties that I meet about whom I would be obliged to take a view on whether they want that information handed over, including people such as victims of crime and people who may not want their details handed over, and that the expansive nature of the applications that have been made to me are unreasonable. That is in black and white after a decision of the Information Commissioner. That was my starting position. Quite frankly, if I keep getting ridiculously expansive requests, either it will take a long time to respond to them or indeed I will refuse and they will go through this process. This is why there has been a 2 000 per cent increase in complaints from members of Parliament. If all those 2 000 complaints ended up with decisions like this, we would waste a great deal of the Information Commissioner’s time and the time of officers of this government.
(1)-(2) I draw the Leader of the Opposition’s attention to the Information Commissioner’s website and the decision reference D0172009, which the Information Commissioner gave on this very issue. Refusals to provide information have been given, but it is fair to put in context to the Leader of the Opposition that the refusals have not been blanket refusals. The refusals have been to acquiesce to requests that have been made because the terms have been so very expansive. The decision on the refusal that went the full distance was a decision of the Information Commissioner. It was the subject of a complaint and then the subject of a decision by the Information Commissioner on the complaint. The conclusion in that matter states — For the reasons given above, I find that the Minister has taken reasonable steps to help the complainant change the access application but that the work involved in dealing with the application would divert a substantial and unreasonable portion of the Minister’s resources away from his office’s other operations. Therefore, I find that the Minister’s decision to refuse to deal with the complainant’s access application under s.20 of the FOI Act is justified and I confirm the decision. The fact is that I get ridiculously expansive applications for access to diary periods when in a given two-week period the Information Commissioner, after his random look at my diary, has assessed that I am quite correct in refusing them. The Information Commissioner has assessed that there are very many people and third parties that I meet about whom I would be obliged to take a view on whether they want that information handed over, including people such as victims of crime and people who may not want their details handed over, and that the expansive nature of the applications that have been made to me are unreasonable. That is in black and white after a decision of the Information Commissioner. That was my starting position. Quite frankly, if I keep getting ridiculously expansive requests, either it will take a long time to respond to them or indeed I will refuse and they will go through this process. This is why there has been a 2 000 per cent increase in complaints from members of Parliament. If all those 2 000 complaints ended up with decisions like this, we would waste a great deal of the Information Commissioner’s time and the time of officers of this government.
Quite frankly, if I keep getting ridiculously expansive requests, either it will take a long time to respond to them or indeed I will refuse and they will go through this process. This is why there has been a 2 000 per cent increase in complaints from members of Parliament. If all those 2 000 complaints ended up with decisions like this, we would waste a great deal of the Information Commissioner’s time and the time of officers of this government.
(1) How does the Attorney General justify his refusal to release his diary or credit card details under FOI legislation, given that at least three other government ministers have done so and that Labor ministers in the previous government routinely provided this information? (2) Given that the Attorney General is the minister responsible for this legislation and is the first law officer of the state, why has his own office breached the strict 45-day time line of the Freedom of Information Act at least four times in the past 12 months by more than 50 days in each case? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. (1)-(2) I draw the Leader of the Opposition’s attention to the Information Commissioner’s website and the decision reference D0172009, which the Information Commissioner gave on this very issue. Refusals to provide information have been given, but it is fair to put in context to the Leader of the Opposition that the refusals have not been blanket refusals. The refusals have been to acquiesce to requests that have been made because the terms have been so very expansive. The decision on the refusal that went the full distance was a decision of the Information Commissioner. It was the subject of a complaint and then the subject of a decision by the Information Commissioner on the complaint. The conclusion in that matter states — For the reasons given above, I find that the Minister has taken reasonable steps to help the complainant change the access application but that the work involved in dealing with the application would divert a substantial and unreasonable portion of the Minister’s resources away from his office’s other operations. Therefore, I find that the Minister’s decision to refuse to deal with the complainant’s access application under s.20 of the FOI Act is justified and I confirm the decision. The fact is that I get ridiculously expansive applications for access to diary periods when in a given two-week period the Information Commissioner, after his random look at my diary, has assessed that I am quite correct in refusing them. The Information Commissioner has assessed that there are very many people and third parties that I meet about whom I would be obliged to take a view on whether they want that information handed over, including people such as victims of crime and people who may not want their details handed over, and that the expansive nature of the applications that have been made to me are unreasonable. That is in black and white after a decision of the Information Commissioner. That was my starting position. Quite frankly, if I keep getting ridiculously expansive requests, either it will take a long time to respond to them or indeed I will refuse and they will go through this process. This is why there has been a 2 000 per cent increase in complaints from members of Parliament. If all those 2 000 complaints ended up with decisions like this, we would waste a great deal of the Information Commissioner’s time and the time of officers of this government.
(2) Given that the Attorney General is the minister responsible for this legislation and is the first law officer of the state, why has his own office breached the strict 45-day time line of the Freedom of Information Act at least four times in the past 12 months by more than 50 days in each case? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. (1)-(2) I draw the Leader of the Opposition’s attention to the Information Commissioner’s website and the decision reference D0172009, which the Information Commissioner gave on this very issue. Refusals to provide information have been given, but it is fair to put in context to the Leader of the Opposition that the refusals have not been blanket refusals. The refusals have been to acquiesce to requests that have been made because the terms have been so very expansive. The decision on the refusal that went the full distance was a decision of the Information Commissioner. It was the subject of a complaint and then the subject of a decision by the Information Commissioner on the complaint. The conclusion in that matter states — For the reasons given above, I find that the Minister has taken reasonable steps to help the complainant change the access application but that the work involved in dealing with the application would divert a substantial and unreasonable portion of the Minister’s resources away from his office’s other operations. Therefore, I find that the Minister’s decision to refuse to deal with the complainant’s access application under s.20 of the FOI Act is justified and I confirm the decision. The fact is that I get ridiculously expansive applications for access to diary periods when in a given two-week period the Information Commissioner, after his random look at my diary, has assessed that I am quite correct in refusing them. The Information Commissioner has assessed that there are very many people and third parties that I meet about whom I would be obliged to take a view on whether they want that information handed over, including people such as victims of crime and people who may not want their details handed over, and that the expansive nature of the applications that have been made to me are unreasonable. That is in black and white after a decision of the Information Commissioner. That was my starting position. Quite frankly, if I keep getting ridiculously expansive requests, either it will take a long time to respond to them or indeed I will refuse and they will go through this process. This is why there has been a 2 000 per cent increase in complaints from members of Parliament. If all those 2 000 complaints ended up with decisions like this, we would waste a great deal of the Information Commissioner’s time and the time of officers of this government.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. (1)-(2) I draw the Leader of the Opposition’s attention to the Information Commissioner’s website and the decision reference D0172009, which the Information Commissioner gave on this very issue. Refusals to provide information have been given, but it is fair to put in context to the Leader of the Opposition that the refusals have not been blanket refusals. The refusals have been to acquiesce to requests that have been made because the terms have been so very expansive. The decision on the refusal that went the full distance was a decision of the Information Commissioner. It was the subject of a complaint and then the subject of a decision by the Information Commissioner on the complaint. The conclusion in that matter states — For the reasons given above, I find that the Minister has taken reasonable steps to help the complainant change the access application but that the work involved in dealing with the application would divert a substantial and unreasonable portion of the Minister’s resources away from his office’s other operations. Therefore, I find that the Minister’s decision to refuse to deal with the complainant’s access application under s.20 of the FOI Act is justified and I confirm the decision. The fact is that I get ridiculously expansive applications for access to diary periods when in a given two-week period the Information Commissioner, after his random look at my diary, has assessed that I am quite correct in refusing them. The Information Commissioner has assessed that there are very many people and third parties that I meet about whom I would be obliged to take a view on whether they want that information handed over, including people such as victims of crime and people who may not want their details handed over, and that the expansive nature of the applications that have been made to me are unreasonable. That is in black and white after a decision of the Information Commissioner. That was my starting position. Quite frankly, if I keep getting ridiculously expansive requests, either it will take a long time to respond to them or indeed I will refuse and they will go through this process. This is why there has been a 2 000 per cent increase in complaints from members of Parliament. If all those 2 000 complaints ended up with decisions like this, we would waste a great deal of the Information Commissioner’s time and the time of officers of this government.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. (1)-(2) I draw the Leader of the Opposition’s attention to the Information Commissioner’s website and the decision reference D0172009, which the Information Commissioner gave on this very issue. Refusals to provide information have been given, but it is fair to put in context to the Leader of the Opposition that the refusals have not been blanket refusals. The refusals have been to acquiesce to requests that have been made because the terms have been so very expansive. The decision on the refusal that went the full distance was a decision of the Information Commissioner. It was the subject of a complaint and then the subject of a decision by the Information Commissioner on the complaint. The conclusion in that matter states — For the reasons given above, I find that the Minister has taken reasonable steps to help the complainant change the access application but that the work involved in dealing with the application would divert a substantial and unreasonable portion of the Minister’s resources away from his office’s other operations. Therefore, I find that the Minister’s decision to refuse to deal with the complainant’s access application under s.20 of the FOI Act is justified and I confirm the decision. The fact is that I get ridiculously expansive applications for access to diary periods when in a given two-week period the Information Commissioner, after his random look at my diary, has assessed that I am quite correct in refusing them. The Information Commissioner has assessed that there are very many people and third parties that I meet about whom I would be obliged to take a view on whether they want that information handed over, including people such as victims of crime and people who may not want their details handed over, and that the expansive nature of the applications that have been made to me are unreasonable. That is in black and white after a decision of the Information Commissioner. That was my starting position. Quite frankly, if I keep getting ridiculously expansive requests, either it will take a long time to respond to them or indeed I will refuse and they will go through this process. This is why there has been a 2 000 per cent increase in complaints from members of Parliament. If all those 2 000 complaints ended up with decisions like this, we would waste a great deal of the Information Commissioner’s time and the time of officers of this government.
(1)-(2) I draw the Leader of the Opposition’s attention to the Information Commissioner’s website and the decision reference D0172009, which the Information Commissioner gave on this very issue. Refusals to provide information have been given, but it is fair to put in context to the Leader of the Opposition that the refusals have not been blanket refusals. The refusals have been to acquiesce to requests that have been made because the terms have been so very expansive. The decision on the refusal that went the full distance was a decision of the Information Commissioner. It was the subject of a complaint and then the subject of a decision by the Information Commissioner on the complaint. The conclusion in that matter states — For the reasons given above, I find that the Minister has taken reasonable steps to help the complainant change the access application but that the work involved in dealing with the application would divert a substantial and unreasonable portion of the Minister’s resources away from his office’s other operations. Therefore, I find that the Minister’s decision to refuse to deal with the complainant’s access application under s.20 of the FOI Act is justified and I confirm the decision. The fact is that I get ridiculously expansive applications for access to diary periods when in a given two-week period the Information Commissioner, after his random look at my diary, has assessed that I am quite correct in refusing them. The Information Commissioner has assessed that there are very many people and third parties that I meet about whom I would be obliged to take a view on whether they want that information handed over, including people such as victims of crime and people who may not want their details handed over, and that the expansive nature of the applications that have been made to me are unreasonable. That is in black and white after a decision of the Information Commissioner. That was my starting position. Quite frankly, if I keep getting ridiculously expansive requests, either it will take a long time to respond to them or indeed I will refuse and they will go through this process. This is why there has been a 2 000 per cent increase in complaints from members of Parliament. If all those 2 000 complaints ended up with decisions like this, we would waste a great deal of the Information Commissioner’s time and the time of officers of this government.
Quite frankly, if I keep getting ridiculously expansive requests, either it will take a long time to respond to them or indeed I will refuse and they will go through this process. This is why there has been a 2 000 per cent increase in complaints from members of Parliament. If all those 2 000 complaints ended up with decisions like this, we would waste a great deal of the Information Commissioner’s time and the time of officers of this government.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.