Page 347 - Week 02 - Thursday, 8 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
does not have access to documents relating to one of those most crucial issues confronting us in recent times: the Labor Party’s controversial plan and decision to close 23 schools. The Labor Party has not allowed the Costello review to see the light of day and, in that instance, it has hidden behind cabinet confidence.
There are a number of instances but I think perhaps the most recent are the problems my colleague Mrs Dunne is having, which just shows how secretive this government is and how it does not want to share information with the public. This bill as it stands will potentially enable the government to use its provisions to deny the public reasonable access to information—access that the public should have. People who want to access information to hold the government accountable will not be able to get it as a result of the guidelines in this bill. It must be very tempting for this government, or indeed for any other government, to include a provision such as clause 7, because it prevents them from being scrutinised. It makes it harder for ordinary members of the public, or other concerned bodies or citizens, to get information relating to government activities.
Measures such as this compromise the whole idea of freedom of information, which was a good step to ensure that governments were made more accountable and to give ordinary citizens or other parties access to relevant documents. Massive abuse of the system does not appear to be a real problem. We are aware that it is sometimes onerous for governments to supply a lot of documents. In many instances they have the ability to charge for these services but they do not do so for the public benefit. At times it is a pain for government officials to find and hand out documents that are required under freedom of information requests, but it is an important part of our modern and democratic process. It is an important part of keeping governments accountable and honest.
I think this is just another step that could be open to abuse by this government, which has turned out to be the least open of any government we have seen since self-government. The Stanhope Labor government has done it again. This bill contains some very wrong priorities—self-serving pretend efficiencies to try to justify this government’s financial mismanagement and, probably even more fundamental, it erodes the rights of people. In our opinion clause 7 cannot be allowed to stand. It is not prescriptive enough, it is open to abuse and it is artificial. The opposition will oppose clause 7 in the detail stage but, as I said earlier, it supports the rest of the bill. I reiterate that we will be voting for the bill but opposing that most important clause.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (10.53): The Attorney-General started his presentation speech on this bill by stating that it “supports the government’s commitment to open government and transparency principles”. Perhaps in his closing speech the minister could reveal exactly which sections of the amendment he is alluding to, because every substantive amendment in this bill is directed at limiting the public’s right to access documents. Some of these restrictions are commendable, such as the sections dealing with the release of personal information and the rights of relevant people to be consulted prior to a decision being made. This brings our FOI Act into line with the commonwealth act, and in this instance the commonwealth act provides a desirable template. I expect that everyone will wholeheartedly agree with these provisions and I expect that the minister will defend them strongly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .