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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2193 ..

MS FOLLETT (continuing):

There is another change that is incorporated in Mr Humphries's legislation, and that is to reflect the Government's policy decision to abolish the central FOI office and to devolve the FOI function to agencies. I have stated before my extreme regret at the closure of the central FOI office. I do believe that was a retrograde step. I still think it is important to people in the ACT to have a central area where they know they can go to obtain information about decisions that have affected them or documents that they might wish to have access to. I understand that there is some general review going on of the current suite of complaints and of access instrumentalities in the ACT. Whilst I have no other information than that, I would encourage the Government to make a point of trying to get a central focus for that kind of activity. It seems to me that it is essential, particularly if you want to maintain any credibility whatsoever of open and accountable government, that people can readily take advantage of the mechanisms that do exist for them to make a complaint, to seek access to documents and so on. Anyway, the Government has made that decision to abolish the central FOI office and to devolve the function; that is over and done with.

What the Bill before us now proposes is to change the reporting arrangements to require that each agency reports each year on FOI, rather than just have the previous central report by the Attorney-General. Given that we have had this devolution of the FOI function, I believe it is sensible to require agencies to now take responsibility for their own management of the FOI function. As I understand it, the reports that will now be prepared by each agency will be included in the agency's annual report. As far as I am able to tell, that will involve the same level of detailed reporting on FOI matters as was previously contained in the central report. In addition, under the present Bill, the Attorney-General will still be required to prepare a central report; but it will be more of an overview nature, rather than a duplication of the detailed information that would be in the agency reports.

I believe that the Bill has sensible provisions. As I say, I do regret that there has been, in my opinion, a downgrading of the FOI function by virtue of the closure of the central office. However, I do hope that the devolution of the function to agencies certainly will not diminish this Assembly's right to examine matters to do with FOI. I guess that we will have the first test of that when we get the agency annual reports which include FOI information. As I say, we certainly will not be opposing this Bill. Many of its provisions are both necessary and sensible. This is a matter that I have a very close interest in, and I will certainly be monitoring the developments that flow from the Government's changes to the performance of the FOI function.

MR OSBORNE (4.47): Mr Speaker, I, too, will be supporting this Bill of Mr Humphries's. However, I must say that I am disappointed that once again we seem to be only chipping away at what I think is a much bigger problem. I think, Minister, you still need to convince me that your new proposal is right. I would like to quote from Mr Humphries's tabling speech, in which he says:

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