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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 1 Hansard (29 April) . . Page.. 113 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

While this report and related comments were directed mainly towards the Commonwealth Public Service, they nonetheless apply just as much to the ACT. In 1993, after our current Freedom of Information Act had been in effect for four years, it was clear that the ACT bureaucracy was gradually becoming more secretive and took longer to process FOI requests than its Federal counterpart. The situation has improved since then. However, there is still much room for further improvement.

Generally speaking, Mr Speaker, freedom of information legislation originally grew out of public demand for more open and accountable government. As governments in general tend to want to avoid close scrutiny if at all possible, provisions for creative exemptions are gradually added to legislation, and measures such as the 30-year rule have come into being. When our present Attorney-General, Mr Humphries, was in opposition, he once stated in the Assembly that the true test of a good government was whether or not its record was able to be scrutinised. In other words, there needed to be a high level of access to government-held information. I trust that he still holds that view, because this Bill provides for him and the Government of which he is the deputy leader to be scrutinised.

Generally speaking, this Bill sets out to achieve two major reforms: Firstly, simplifying the process of making a freedom of information application; and, secondly, restricting access to official information only to the extent necessary to protect essential public interest, to protect real commercial confidentiality, and to preserve the privacy of individuals.

The first of these reforms, concerning the process of application, has attempted to combine the best aspects of the former central office and the new decentralised system currently in operation. This new process incorporates the concept of having a designated records officer within an agency or department. However, the role of that records officer would be extended to include providing hands-on help for people who need assistance in making their application. The intention is to ensure that the resulting FOI application is tailored to the requirements of the applicant as much as possible.

Several minor changes to this part of the Act which affect current practice have been included. These include agencies having shorter time periods for compliance regarding their obligations under the Act and providing for a wider range of ways that access to documents or information can be given to applicants. The parts of the Act relating to exempt documents and access to personal records have been completely replaced. The restriction of access to documents would fall into two categories - documents which are fully exempt and with no time restrictions placed on them, and documents which are subject to public interest exemptions for only 12 months. 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.

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