Page 407 - Week 02 - Thursday, 8 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
which do not like particularly the work involved, but it is part of the checks and balances processes of our system, and has been for some time.
It is meant to be one of the hallmarks of an open and accountable government, which is something that governments of all political persuasions mouth platitudes about but quite often do not actually fulfil. As I said earlier, with this government in particular we have had a number of instances in recent times when they have shown themselves to be the least accountable government since the Assembly started. They are, of course, the first majority government since the Assembly started, which is all the more reason to have these necessary checks and balances.
I fear that a large number of requests which may well involve a fair bit of work but which should be granted for good governance reasons will be refused now because of this clause. Accordingly, I would urge members to vote against this clause. As I said earlier, there are some other parts of the bill which we are content to allow to go through, but I think that this clause has the potential to be really abused. It is very open ended and it is something that I think governments and departments will want to use to knock back perfectly reasonable requests on the basis that it is all too hard, it is all too costly, it is all going to take too much time. That should not be necessarily a basis for refusing requests.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Planning) (4.49): Mr Speaker, the government rejects the assertions of Mr Stefaniak in relation to this clause. The provisions, far from being too general, are in fact more specific than the current provisions in the act. The current provisions in the act simply state that an agency or the minister may refuse a request to grant access to documents if the workload is too significant, end of story.
There is no detailing of the types of reasons and issues that need to be taken into account; nor is there, as there is in this amendment, the ruling out of certain issues as issues that cannot be taken into account in making this decision. I draw members’ attention in particular to clause 7 (1A) (b), which highlights those matters that the minister or agency must not have regard to, and those are any fee or charge payable for processing the request, the reason that the person requesting access gives for requesting the information, and the agency’s or minister’s belief as to the person’s reasons for requesting access.
So it actually rules out particular issues or particular matters that cannot be taken into account in making this decision, as well as being more detailed about the types of matters that the decision maker does have to have regard to in deciding whether the exercising of this clause is appropriate. Mr Stefaniak also fails to mention, of course, that this clause and this power are subject to review in the AAT. A decision to refuse access on the grounds of a workload which is deemed to be too onerous is subject to review in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
In fact, that is one of the reasons that this detail is listed in this amendment so that if this clause is exercised and if the matter is referred to the AAT, the AAT, instead of looking at whether the workload is too onerous or unreasonable, can actually see the detail of the reasoning in regard to the matters listed in the clause. Far from actually weakening, I believe it strengthens the operation of this provision and gives greater clarity and transparency to it, whilst still maintaining AAT review.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .