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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (24 September) . . Page.. 3192 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

Full exemptions would apply to 11 categories of documents on the basis of public safety, privacy and legal professional privilege. Executive documents would also have a full exemption, except for those which have been prepared for consideration by the Executive and those recording decisions made by the Executive, which would be exempt only until the decision to which the document relates has been put into effect or made public. The reason for this qualification is to bring a balance between allowing the government enough privacy to make decisions in secret and allowing public scrutiny of the basis of that decision. On the face of it, I consider that this section of the Bill passes Mr Humphries's test for a good government.

There are eight categories of documents for public interest exceptions, with those exceptions being valid only for a period of up to 12 months. After this period of time, the restriction would be lifted and access would be given. I have included this provision as the informal practice of the past tends to have had successive governments interpreting what is in the public interest to mean really what is in the government's interest. Establishing a sunset clause for this category of exemptions would prevent an intentional hazing of the boundaries of where the public interest lies. I make no apology for attempting to deliberately establish in this legislation that the public interest lies in the disclosure of publicly-held information.

New sections have been added to the Act which clearly set out a person's right of access to personal information held on them by the government, including access to medical records. A number of necessary safeguards have been included where that information relates to such things as workplace evaluation material and documents of a medical or psychiatric nature where access to them would prejudice the wellbeing or mental health of the applicant. Other minor reforms include changes to the calculation of fees. Deposits on account would be required only for charges estimated to be over $250, and exemptions from paying fees would be provided for Assembly members. At present, fee exemptions exist for members if they can prove that their application is in the public interest. There it is again, Mr Speaker. However, as I consider that members should be given the benefit of the doubt that their work is automatically in the public interest, I think an exemption should apply.

The rest of the Bill is basically translating the current Act from legal rubbish into plain English. In this case, I think the drafter has done a great job. I guess, Mr Speaker, that my biggest disappointment with the Bill is that, while it has taken nearly two years to get to this stage, a parliamentary drafter has been working on it full time for only the last 41/2 days. The result, I believe, is good, and I am grateful for the effort of that drafter, Mr James Graham. Because of the time constraint on being face to face with Mr Graham, the resulting Bill still uses the same basic structure of the current Act. Had there been more time - and one would have thought that two years was enough time, Mr Speaker - we could possibly have started completely from scratch. But that is something that I will continue to do.

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