Page 391 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 13 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES (11.59), in reply: I thank members who have contributed to the debate on this matter. I sense a view around the chamber that there is a certain timeliness in this procedure, even if some of us cannot bring ourselves to support it. I do not think much needs to be said, except to make two comments about things that Mr Connolly, the Minister, said. First of all, we should dismiss the question of what happened at Weetangera as a red herring. This Bill is not about the basic right of government to exclude certain documents from exposure under FOI. We might have another debate about that at another time. Mr Moore might care to bring forward a Bill saying that governments can never hide anything, and we can debate that when that comes before the Assembly. I am sure that Mr Connolly will not be supporting such a Bill when it comes forward.
I do not argue with the right of governments to refuse, for example, to disclose Cabinet documents. Our Cabinet system of government would be under serious threat if we had a system where those documents could be disclosed. Mr Connolly sort of hinted that in the Weetangera debate the Alliance Government in some way took advantage of the loopholes it is now trying to close. If that were the case, I would certainly strongly suggest that Mr Connolly bring forward evidence of that, because I do not recall that ever having been the case. If there were deliberate delays, using these kinds of provisions as a tool, I hope that he produces evidence of that.
The second point is that he complains about the problem of where a department might spend considerable time and effort producing information under an FOI request and then find that the whole exercise has been wasted because the remittance then is not made and the person says that they do not want the information. The fact of life is that our departments in the Territory really have to be a bit quicker about making those remission decisions. They are not hard decisions to make. They are usually evident on the paper itself that presents the application. Is the person who has made the application entitled to some remission of fees? Are they in the condition that they say they are in? Are they perhaps a pensioner who cannot afford it, or are they someone with a genuine public interest? Those things will almost always - - -
Mr Berry: A politician with a bodgie public interest claim.
MR HUMPHRIES: Indeed, a politician is a good example of that person.
Mr Berry: A politician with a bodgie public interest claim.
MR HUMPHRIES: No, there is no bodgie public interest. I know that you love to describe all applications to find out what your Government is doing as bodgie; but the fact is that we have found some very interesting things by probing through FOI about your Government, and we will continue to do so. I hope that this amendment will help us do so.
Before we dismiss that kind of problem let us be careful about indicating that unfortunately our departments in the ACT have not been very good about dealing with matters promptly. I refer to the matter that I raised when I originally introduced this Bill. In the period between 11 May 1989, self-government day, and 30 June 1990 - that includes some period of the Alliance Government, of course - only 65.3 per cent of freedom of information applications were processed within the statutory time limit. That is a very unfortunate reflection on what has been happening within our bureaucracy, under both Alliance and Labor governments. I certainly think that we should be saying to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .