Page 425 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 13 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is not true for the minister to say that no government would ever release documents that were classified cabinet-in-confidence, because in this territory, in relation to freedom of information requests, I have received documents that have been classified cabinet-in-confidence. Those documents related to factual information—
MR SPEAKER: Mrs Dunne, are you debating a matter that might end up in the courts?
MRS DUNNE: No, Mr Speaker, I am speaking in generality. I am speaking in generality, not about the matter that I have before the AAT. I am speaking about things that I have received in the past, not about the current matter.
MR SPEAKER: I trust that you will maintain that distinction.
MRS DUNNE: I am very mindful of that, remembering also that the sub judice rules apply to circumstances when someone presiding over a matter might be swayed by what has happened in here. I do not think that the president of the AAT would be swayed by what we say in here in relation to conclusive certificates.
But it has been the case in relation to, for instance, the release of documents concerning Ginninderra district high, when I received, on internal review, documents that had gone to cabinet, that were classified cabinet-in-confidence, but covered factual material. There are plenty of precedents, both here and in the commonwealth, where that has happened.
It is wrong for this minister to say that cabinet-in-confidence documents are never released. It shows how little he knows about the Freedom of Information Act. He stood up here the other day and said that conclusive certificates did not apply to internal working documents. He had to correct the record because he was totally wrong. He knows very little about the operation of the Freedom of Information Act. He is a new attorney and I do not expect him to be across every matter of his brief, but when he comes in here to introduce major changes to an important piece of public access documentation he should know what he is talking about. On a number of occasions in this place the minister has shown his knowledge to be entirely deficient.
Whilst Mr Stefaniak has said that we will support the amendments in relation to section 37, what we are seeing in relation to section 37 should be the very lowest test that we should see concerning sections 35 and 36 in relation to certificates. Until that happens, I will continue to criticise the government on their performance in relation to freedom of information, because this government said that they were going to be in favour of access to information, that they were going to be open and accountable, but they have not been. They have not used the Freedom of Information Act as a means of ensuring openness and accountability in this territory. Their failings are now on the public record. The failings of this minister in not making these amendments relate to sections 35 and 36 show just how little they are swayed by these things.
It would be great if a minister who issued a conclusive certificate, if conclusive certificates continued to exist, had to come in here and justify to the Assembly why he persists with the conclusive certificate. That would be a step in the right direction. It is the absolute minimum that we should be asking for and demanding in this territory.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .