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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3426 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

documents. There is a whole series of ways in which he can get hold of those documents, but he has chosen to go down the path of an FOI request. He is now seeking to interfere with the FOI process to have all the documents he requested delivered.

It may well be-I do not know-that under FOI legislation the officer responsible has determined that Mr Corbell is not entitled to some of the documents. Is the Assembly now going to overrule that, without even looking at the documents? To be fair, I probably should have drawn this matter to Mr Corbell's attention earlier in the day and suggested he withdraw his motion. I concede that that would have been a better approach, and I apologise for not doing that. I have spoken to Mr Corbell on many of these sorts of issues earlier. I have been caught up today, and I was reminded only a few moments ago that I said I would speak on this matter.

The crunch is that the minister ought not to deliver these documents tomorrow afternoon. They should go through the proper process. If Mr Corbell is unhappy with the process, then he should use the AAT.

Mr Corbell requested the documents on 20 October. My recollection of the Freedom of Information Act is that the documents should be delivered in 30 days. That they have not been is a matter of concern. If Mr Corbell's motion had said, "Will you investigate why they were not delivered in 30 days?" that would have been a perfectly reasonable request. I can understand why he is perturbed that they were not delivered within 30 days. I do not know why they were not when there is a provision in the legislation that ought to be complied with. I still believe this motion is the wrong way to go about it, and I think members should strenuously oppose the motion.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (5.31): Mr Corbell has moved his motion because he has not received documents. Mr Corbell put out a press release this morning in which the third paragraph says:

As Mr Moore rightly points out, there is a law and there is a process. Members should know this. I think most members do. I am sure Mr Corbell does. Section 61 of the Freedom of Information Act states that where a decision is not made within 30 days and no notice of decision has been received by the applicant then the decision-maker is deemed to have made a decision refusing to grant access to the requested documents. This enables the applicant to make an application to the AAT to have the decision reviewed. Section 61 also allows the AAT, on application by the agency, to allow further time for the agency to finalise the application. That is the law; that is the process.

As Mr Moore quite ably pointed out, Mr Corbell seeks to put himself above the law by using a motion in the Assembly. The curious thing is that Mr Corbell says in his press release:

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