Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 11 Hansard (14 December) . . Page.. 3070 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

The report, with its case studies, indicates where residents found it difficult to get all the information they wanted. Overwhelmingly, I believe it is the case that the information was available to and received by those who wanted it. Again, I would agree with the report when it said at paragraph 17.79:

This is not to suggest that the residents would have been satisfied with the outcome or will be satisfied with the eventual decision.

Nevertheless, the processes must be changed so that the required information is easily and immediately available. I do not believe that FOI is the answer. As Minister, my approach was that if material was available through FOI it should be provided as a matter of course to appropriate applicants. The trouble with FOI is that applicants make blanket applications, and the process of providing basic information becomes inordinately time consuming and expensive. Perhaps as part of the procedure for handling development and variation applications a running sheet could be maintained on which all the basic and vital information is recorded. I emphasise "all". This would then be available instantly on request. Of course, FOI provisions would continue to be available.

The report makes a great deal of the difficulties, real or otherwise, in acquiring information. I can understand that, if people believe that something is being withheld, suspicions are easily aroused. The board's careful examination of a multitude of files suggests to me that there has not been anything hidden. There are numerous comments about administrative glitches and inconsistencies, but no startling revelations. The board's criticism about inconsistencies in the operation of FOI may well be valid, but who is the board to talk? It was not open and accessible itself.

In seeking information, I experienced the same frustrations that were evidently the lot of some residents. Obviously, I needed to see the submissions and the transcripts. Since I expected to be called, I was particularly keen to see the documents; but I could not - not easily and immediately. There was, and remains, a perceived legal problem with submissions. I acknowledge that, but it is remarkable that they are still not readily available. More than that; I was originally dispatched to a private photocopying firm and was told that I would have to pay for copies. The transcripts of evidence were equally difficult to see. I was told that copies were not available, but I could make an appointment to read the areas of interest in the rooms being used by the board of inquiry itself. And remember that somewhere in the report is a critical comment that an applicant in a particular circumstance actually had to pay for FOI.

I thank the Chief Minister for her quick response to my request last week for all submissions and transcripts. I understand there are some soon to arrive. When we next come to debate this issue, I hope I will have seen and studied them all. It is important that I read all that information carefully - and the Assembly's Planning Committee too - so that we can accurately assess that lack of balance that I have claimed is in the report.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .