Page 406 - Week 02 - Thursday, 8 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
when their children were at a certain age was counterproductive. It came at a great cost to families and society in general, as more young people were left to their own devices between when they left school or college in the afternoon and when their parents returned home. These young people were literally going off the rails and engaging in antisocial and criminal behaviour.
Mr Speaker, it is easy to see how this can cost families, and the community, dearly. It is obvious that our federal government’s welfare-to-work and IR legislation is taking its toll. The federal government will argue that its legislation is offering women more opportunity and giving parents more time with their children. However, the research shows that, in fact, the reverse is the case. All of us in this place should be very concerned about this trend, not just on this day when we celebrate women but, indeed, every day.
MR SPEAKER: This discussion of a matter of public importance has concluded.
Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2006
Detail stage
Clauses 1 to 6.
Debate resumed.
Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7.
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra—Leader of the Opposition) (4.45): Mr Speaker, I will be opposing this clause, and I move my amendment accordingly [see schedule 1 at page 417].
As I alluded to in my speech in the in-principle debate, I think that this clause is the most troublesome of all the clauses in this amendment bill. Other speakers have mentioned some general problems in relation to the rest of the bill and, as indicated earlier, we certainly will be looking at how it all pans out. I flag that the opposition probably will be looking to bring in its own bill in the ensuing few months.
I have already mentioned comments made by the Council for Civil Liberties on clause 7. This clause really is problematic. It is somewhat open ended. Despite attempts to have some structure to it in terms of some provisions and things to be taken into account, it is very open ended. There is great potential for a government to use it as an excuse not to grant documents to someone who quite rightly uses the Freedom of Information Act, and it is really subject to potential abuse.
As I said earlier, what is the cut-off? Is it 100 documents? Is it 10,000 documents? It would be very easy for a government to use this clause to say, “No, it is all too hard. It is going to be all too costly. We will decline your request.” That goes contrary to the whole idea of freedom of information. It is something that is inconvenient for governments and it is something that is inconvenient for government departments,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .