Page 422 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 13 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
in the past tried to ram through much more major points. I think the minister took the appropriate course there.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (10.41): The Attorney-General started his presentation speech for these amendments by saying again that they support the government’s commitment to open government and transparency principles. I would have thought that this debate presented an opportunity for the Attorney-General to come clean on the exact nature of the scope of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal review of a conclusive certificate, in light of the decision of a majority of High Court judges in the case of McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury.
It is one of the more breathtaking acts of political hypocrisy that I have witnessed in this place for this government to seek to justify these retrograde amendments by reference to that decision. This is what the ABC’s Media Watch had to say about the impact of the McKinnon decision:
Good journalists prefer facts, not fiction, to beat up on governments and bureaucrats. But getting facts could now become very difficult.
This is what Mr McKinnon himself had to say about it:
... any minister now confronted with an FOI request for information that shows they’ve failed in their duties can simply issue a conclusive certificate and that’s it ... This is the problem with a conclusive certificate. The tribunal doesn’t get to look at the reasons in the public interest: for release and against release. It only gets to look at very narrow reasons why it shouldn’t be released in the public interest ...Freedom of information legislation wasn’t meant to set up a lawyer’s picnic: it was meant to allow you and me to get documents held by the government.
In an editorial, the Australian newspaper said:
The most immediate consequence of the decision is its emasculation of the FOI Act … This will have a chilling effect on journalism.
Johan Lidberg studied a number of FOI regimes for his PhD thesis, titled Freedom of information banana republics and the freedom of information index. He said:
In many respects Australia is the worst case in the study. Not only did it score lowest, it also projects what turns out to be a misleading and even false image of having a functioning mature FOI system as part of a mature democracy. The study clearly shows that the Australian FOI regime is completely dysfunctional and not worthy of country that prides itself on being a mature democracy.
MR SPEAKER: Dr Foskey, please come to the amendments that are before the house.
DR FOSKEY: I take issue with that. The amendments actually are part of the bill, and what I am saying refers as much to the amendments as it does to the original bill. I seek leave to continue my speech, Mr Speaker.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .