No fanfare accompanied the tabling and for a pretty good reason: the statutory review was, embarrassingly, two years late.

Anyone familiar with the operations of the Government Information (Public Access) Act will not miss the irony of this, given its growing reputation as more of a road block than a facilitator of documents.

But they will also likely be dismayed by the contents of the report, which is the first review of the current NSW access to government information laws in their eight-year history.

The review has been keenly awaited as an opportunity to address its failings, including the well-canvassed issue of how applications for government information must be submitted.

It's an issue that exercised the mind of Barry O'Farrell who when he was opposition leader promised to abolish the $30 application fee if elected to government.

When he became premier, nothing happened. Not did it under Mike Baird. Nor is it likely to under Premier Gladys Berejiklian.

The department concluded that the current fees, including a $30 an hour processing charge, were "nominal" and that when other jurisdictions were compared, there was "not a strong case" for change.

Try telling that to the media organisation or individual hit with charges that can reach hundreds if not thousands of dollars - an obvious deterrent.

The review gets farcical when the question of access is further discussed in relation to the possibility of - wait for it - electronic applications.

Currently in NSW applications must be on paper, in writing, accompanied by a cheque or money order and posted to or lodged with the agency concerned.

Bizarrely, even if an agency wants to accept an electronic application it must first seek permission from the Information Commissioner.

Straight-faced, the review notes: "The use of electronic communication is steadily increasing, and is the preferred method of communication with government for many Australians.".

It recognises the concerns raised by some agencies that "allowing electronic lodgement may result in a substantial increase in the number of applications being made, the processing of which may result in adverse effects on agency resources."

Heaven forbid.

Its recommended solution? Give agencies the discretion to accept electronic submissions without the need to consult the Information Commissioner.

You can probably guess how many agencies will be jumping at that opportunity.

Elsewhere there is a glaring omission in relation to addressing the issue of agencies that are exempt from the GIPA Act, which include the NSW Parliament itself.

This means, for example, that journalists and interested citizens are unable to use the laws to access the travel expenses of NSW politicians.

In his submission to the review, freedom of information expert Peter Timmins suggested this situation be rectified

"The parliamentary departments were allocated $140 million in the budget," he pointed out in his submission of August 2014.

"Given the object, the act should extend to these agencies that provide administrative services to the Parliament and members of Parliament".

The same could easily be said for other exclusions such as the Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority, which makes critical, secret decisions about new alcohol and poker machine licences in NSW.

Yet the issue is not the subject of a recommendation in the review.

There is an opportunity for Attorney-General Mark Speakman here, who is by no means bound to follow the recommendations of the department.

He could take his own recommendations to cabinet, seeking the support of his colleagues to show they take the concept of open government seriously.

Making good on O'Farrell's promise to abolish access fees, making email applications standard practice and widening the scope of the act to cover politicians and the Parliament would be a good start.