Government officers responsible for servicing claims made under the Access to Information Act say that excessive requests and intensive research are tying up the system and reducing other services normally provided by the public sector.

As a result, they have asked that the Act be amended to include a provision giving them authority to refuse requests that are excessive and bulky.

In a submission to yesterday's meeting of the Joint Select Committee of Parliament reviewing the Act, the Access to Information Association of Administrators (ATIAA) said its collective experience was of receiving applications requiring extensive research, "that at times result in over 2,000 documents or pages of documents being retrieved for reproduction".

"This. ties up several officers in the public authority, rendering them incapable of performing their regular duties, including how they are able to treat with other requests," Helen Rumbolt, who chairs the ATIAA, stated in the submission.

"In some instances, overtime costs have had to be paid to these officers who are required to work beyond 5:00 pm and on weekends to meet the deadline for fulfillment of these requests. To date, voluminous and unreasonable requests received have not been met in the required timeframe as stipulated," she added.

Rumbolt urged the committee to consider the grant of access in a context of "reasonableness".

"In other words, when is a request a 'reasonable request' and when would responsible officers have met their obligations of granting access to documents," she explained.

She suggested that the committee look at the Freedom of Information acts of Australia and Trinidad and Tobago which allow requests to be refused if the authorities are satisfied that the work involved in processing those requests "would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the agency from its other operations".

In response to a question from committee member Senator Trevor Munroe, as to the extent of the mischief that needs to be cleared, Rumbolt responded that it was "extensive".

Shirley Miller, the government's legal reform expert, noted that there were provisions in the original Bill limiting those requests but that they were removed by the Joint Select Committee (JSC), which reviewed the original draft.

"I had prepared a document setting out provisions which were originally in the Bill, but were taken out by the JSC," Miller said. "We looked at provision in the Australian legislation, Trinidad, Belize and Queensland and the Bill was changed."

Both Senator Munroe, and Senator Burchell Whiteman, the minister of information and chairman of the committee, expressed support for the proposal.

"I think we need to find a way to protect the system and to protect the intentions of the Act," Whiteman said. "Not to deny people, but if you can imagine the amount of time it would take to deal with one request of that sort, when what I would call little people are out there wanting things about their birth certificates, their transcripts, whatever, in the scheme of things it really does not seem reasonable and I think that we would really be going against the spirit and intention of the Act."

'What was I thinking?' Chris Brown speaks out

Fashion Saturday

Colourful Coif