Page 2603 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 24 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
mention any figures tells me very clearly that the rate of remission of fees for members of this Assembly has dropped during the life of this Government. It has dropped. I think, Madam Speaker, that that is very much a reflection on the very points raised by Mrs Carnell in her speech on this matter.
Another red herring, financial hardship, was constantly pleaded by Mr Berry. He said, "You should not be claiming financial hardship. You cannot claim financial hardship. Financial hardship is irrelevant". There are several grounds for claiming a remission of fees, Mr Berry. You should look at those grounds. One is financial hardship. No member of this Assembly, I think, would reasonably argue financial hardship. We are all paid well enough not to need that kind of argument, but there is a very clear case in the Freedom of Information Act for remission of fees based on public interest.
Those opposite have denigrated claims by this side of the chamber that public interest is important, that there is a reasonable case for public interest in much of the work we do. They have suggested quite scurrilously that members of this Assembly have made FOI requests on the basis of some personal interest rather than public interest. That is a sleazy kind of claim to make and it is not backed up by any specific example. It could only come from a person like Mr Wayne Berry. The fact is that every claim that has been made by members of this Assembly on this side of the chamber has been based on legitimate public interest grounds - information about the hospice, information about the Government's budgetary requirements, information about the siting of an abortion clinic in the ACT. Those are all matters of legitimate public interest. Like it or not, they are. You would rather that they were not, of course, but they are.
Before I leave the question of red herrings, we have this delightful exchange from the Minister concerning the figures quoted on today's Matthew Abraham program. What a spectacle! The Minister was claiming that Mrs Carnell misled and therefore, I suppose by implication, he is entitled to mislead as well. Let us take the arguments as they come. Mrs Carnell suggested that there was no fee in Victoria. Well, that is clearly an exaggeration, Madam Speaker.
Mr Berry: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I heard clearly the imputation that I had misled this Assembly and I think that ought to be withdrawn.
Mrs Carnell: No, it was Mr Connolly.
MR HUMPHRIES: Misled the public.
Mr Berry: If he is accused of making misleading remarks in this Assembly it ought to be withdrawn.
MR HUMPHRIES: Okay, I withdraw, Madam Speaker, and I will say this: The argument put by Mr Connolly was, "Mrs Carnell gave inaccurate facts and therefore I am entitled to give inaccurate facts to members of the public". That was the argument that Mr Connolly used in his debate. He said that Mrs Carnell said that there were no fees charged in Victoria. The fact of life is that there is a very small fee charged in Victoria for the application.
Mr Berry: But you said that the fees were not the problem.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .