A business case has not been produced to support the introduction of fees for public access to information requests, The Royal Gazette can reveal.

Premier David Burt announced in February’s Budget that the charges would be brought in this financial year, prompting criticism from the Information Commissioner, a global human rights group and the Opposition.

Mr Burt, who is also the Minister of Finance, said that Pati increased the Government’s transparency and accountability but could be “cumbersome and expensive” so a “nominal” fee was needed to recoup some costs.

But the financial benefits of bringing in the fee remain unclear after the Ministry of Finance told the Gazette, in response to a Pati request, that the Government did not develop a business case and held no records on how much the charge would be and how much revenue it would generate.

The RG asked on March 3 for the business case and for the projected fee amount and projected revenue from those fees for the fiscal year 2023-24.

The Pati officer for the ministry headquarters replied: “Unfortunately, the records that you have requested does not exist after all reasonable steps have been take to find it.

“The Ministry of Finance headquarters does not hold the records you have requested and, to our knowledge, the record is not held by any other public authority (sic).”

She added that civil servants with direct knowledge or some knowledge of the topic had been given guidance on how to search for the records but had drawn a blank.

“It was confirmed that there was no business case developed for these fees,” added the officer.

“No final fee has been agreed and, therefore, nothing has been included in the budget for Pati fees.”

Vance Campbell, the Minister responsible for the Cabinet Office, told Parliament on March 6 that the Government expected to raise $50,000 by introducing Pati fees in 2023-24.

He did not share with MPs how much the fee would be but if he was basing the projected revenue on the 158 Pati requests made to public authorities last year, it would suggest a charge of about $316 per request.

Information Commissioner Gitanjali Gutierrez has warned that the introduction of fees could discourage “everyday people” from asking for records while being “highly unlikely to generate meaningful revenue for the Government”.

Asked if she had any more information about the fee, Ms Gutierrez said yesterday: “I sent queries to the Government when the announcement was made but have not received any further information or details about it.”

Mr Burt said in his Budget Statement the fee would be “nominal” and was being introduced because of the expense of fulfilling Pati requests, citing one request that cost more than $300,000 to process.

The Premier said: “High levels of expenditure on requests are not uncommon, as many government departments have had to halt vital work or hire short-term consultants to assist in responding to Pati requests.”

The RG asked the Cabinet Office, under Pati legislation, to share records concerning the request that cost more than $300,000 but got no response within the six-week statutory time frame. The permanent secretary must now give a decision by June 13.

We also asked for:

· a breakdown of how the $300,000+ was spent

· a list of short-term consultants hired by the Government to deal with Pati requests since the law came into effect in 2015

· a breakdown of the cost of those hires

· the Pati requests processed by those consultants and any subsequent disclosure of records, and

· the list of public authorities involved in the hiring of consultants to deal with Pati requests.

There was no response yesterday to a request for comment from the Premier and Mr Campbell on the lack of a business case for Pati fees.

Download PDF File

Pati #724 MoF Decision Notice.pdf