Page 354 - Week 02 - Thursday, 8 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
legislation and that we need to have the same national security provisions as the federal legislation, because we do not hold the same national security information as the federal government. Although I do not have a real problem with it, there are questions about the whole point that we are doing this because we need to have mirror legislation.
There are other provisions in here which are designed to impede people’s access to information. Clause 6 causes me some concern. Although we are not opposing clause 6, we will watch it very carefully because I see that clause 6 will make it easy for departments to prevaricate and put off the time when they have to provide information to the public by a mere 30 days, because a few bureaucrats can get together and say, “If we write to each other and say that there are some overlapping things here, we can delay things for 30 days”. My colleagues and I will be watching that to see that this provision is not abused and, if it is abused, we will be bringing it back.
Mr Corbell: But you are going to support it.
MRS DUNNE: You will get to speak again, Simon. Be quiet. Another thing is that the provisions of clause 7 are onerous and are designed to find every opportunity to cut off people’s freedom of information requests. That is all part of the mentality of the ACT bureaucracy under the Stanhope government. I will relate to you, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, another incident that has occurred with me in making a freedom of information request to the department of education. I got this peremptory letter saying, “If you do not write to us within a particular period and tell us how you can limit your request, we will throw your request out.”
That is not in the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act. The principles of the Freedom of Information Act require a decision in favour of disclosure. They require people to presume that everything will be disclosed, not to go round saying, “Oh, oh, Mrs Dunne has asked for something. How can we stop her finding out? If we cannot stop her finding out, how can we actually stymie her freedom of information request at the first hurdle?” It is too difficult and it is too inconvenient. I might find out something that they do not like. What are they trying to do—not even process the request, but find an excuse for throwing it out? The approach of the department of education in this regard has been appalling from the outset. There are many matters that need to be discussed and revisited in this place after the current case in relation to my and another parent’s appeal to the AAT is dealt with in the AAT. At that time, I think, the opposition will be looking at its own amendments to the Freedom of Information Act.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Planning) (11.20), in reply: I have to say that the government is somewhat bemused by the significant conspiracy theories that are being advanced by those opposite and the crossbench. I want to draw to members’ attention the hypocrisy of Mrs Dunne’s comments in particular. Mrs Dunne talked about the evils of conclusive certificates, but she neglected to mention that her leader stood up 20 minutes before her and said that he would be supporting, and the opposition would be supporting, the only clause in this bill that provides for a new range of conclusive certificates.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .