Page 2595 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 24 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, the truth, of course, as always, lies somewhere in the middle. Many applications by the Opposition are legitimate applications and a public interest test legitimately applies. That has been granted in some 40 per cent of cases. In other cases, Madam Speaker, the public interest test may not be made out and has not been made out. Mrs Carnell's support for Mr Kennett is touching. Her endorsement of the proposition that Labor members in Victoria were making frivolous applications, as opposed to the stout-hearted public interest of members of the ACT Liberal Party, does show rather a degree of partisanship. The Government's position, Madam Speaker, must be viewed as rather fairer, as is borne out by the record, in that in a number of cases we have granted remission of fees in the public interest when members of this Assembly have made applications. In some other cases - - -
Mrs Carnell: Not very often.
MR CONNOLLY: In three out of seven, Mrs Carnell, which is not a bad strike rate. Interestingly, it is the same strike rate as applies generally. Members of the public or members of this Assembly tend to be granted remission where there is a public interest test.
There was a piece in the Canberra Times the other day from the Watson Residents Association, who were having a bit of a grizzle about a particular matter and it was reported that they were dissatisfied with the way they were being dealt with under FOI. What was not reported was the fact that they were granted remission of fees in relation to that particular application. There was a delay because the documents that they seek relating to better cities are documents which obviously, in many cases, come from the Commonwealth, and there are specific provisions in the Act which say that where you are dealing with documents of another government you can apply for an extension of time while you consult with that other government, and that is what we are doing. But again, that is just one example. An uninformed reader of the media may think, "Oh dear, the Watson Residents Association have not been granted remission. They have been dealt with harshly". In fact they have - - -
Mrs Carnell: How about the Weetangera Action Group?
MR CONNOLLY: That was the case in which you people refused access to documents and appealed all the way to the AAT. They were seeking access to - - -
Mrs Carnell: In 1992?
MR CONNOLLY: Yes, that was when the decision was handed down. It related to access to documents from the joint party room. If you read the decision - - -
Mr Humphries: Did you reverse the decision?
MR CONNOLLY: Mr Humphries, I would have liked to reverse the decision, but there is a convention that it is not appropriate for an incoming government to reverse decisions in relation to access to documents of a previous government.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .