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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3428 ..

MR BERRY (5.35): I listened to the argument from government members suggesting that Mr Corbell had put himself above the law. I think that is a little bit disingenuous. It is open to this Assembly at any time to order the government to do certain things, and the government can ignore the decision of the Assembly at its peril.

Mr Moore: You are going to order us to bypass the law, are you?

MR BERRY: It is not above the law for Assembly members to demand documents. In fact, for committees, there are specific provisions for demanding documents. There is nothing wrong with this Assembly making decisions about documents the government holds on certain matters. Elected members here have the privileged position of being able to have closer involvement in the decision-making process because of their position in this Assembly than members of the community who might want to use the Freedom of Information Act to seek documents.

It is always open to members, on behalf of their constituency, to move motions in relation to any matter in the Assembly. There is no law against that. So let us stop this nonsense of suggesting in a snide way that people have breached the law by asking for documents. The fact of the matter is that the documents have not been provided. It is open to any member at any time to move a motion in this place to require the government to provide documents. There is nothing wrong with that.

If the motion is carried, the government denies access to these documents at its peril. We are in a quite different position from normal people in the community who seek to gain access to documents via the Freedom of Information Act. It is disingenuous and dissembling for the government to put the argument it did. It does them no credit.

MR RUGENDYKE (5.37): I will not be able to support this motion. The Freedom of Information Act is very specific about the process that is to be followed in seeking papers under the act. My vague recollection of it is that the department has about 30 days to comply with a request. If that does not happen, from memory, the act calls it a deemed refusal or some such thing, and there are statutory steps that follow on in the event of a deemed refusal. If, after several other steps, the papers still have not been provided, the matter can be taken to the AAT. I think that is the appropriate process. For that reason I will not be able to support the motion. The proper process has been followed, apparently.

MR CORBELL (5.38), in reply: This is not a matter of putting myself above the law. As Mr Berry has rightly pointed out, it is within the scope of any member of this place to request documents. That is what I am doing. I am doing it in light of the fact that the Department of Urban Services has not supplied documents within the statutory timeframe. Mr Smyth has tabled a letter. The dated mentioned in that letter would not allow this Assembly to receive the documents and scrutinise them in this sitting period.

I believe that the urban infill issue is of considerable concern for many people in Canberra, and this Assembly should have the benefit of those documents so that before the end of the sitting year it can further question this government's intentions. That is a reasonable request for any member to make. That is the reason why I made my request and the reason why I am moving this motion today.

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