Page 426 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 13 March 2007

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

---

MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Planning) (10.56): I am pleased that Mrs Dunne is receiving certain types of documents that have been considered cabinet-in-confidence. I think that her argument, in some respects, is self-defeating in that it highlights that the legislation does work and does provide access to information which is relevant and available. I think that in some respects Mrs Dunne’s argument is self-defeating.

No, I do not profess to be an absolute expert on every part of the Freedom of Information Act, but I am confident that the changes that have been made in this regard are an appropriate and balanced response. Whilst it is always the case that, in the interests of advancing a political argument, criticism is made of a government’s perceived weaknesses in the administration of such legislation, the facts speak otherwise. The overwhelming majority of freedom of information requests are dealt with in an expeditious and timely way and result in the full release of information that has been requested, but not in all circumstances. Partial release is quite common as well. That comes down to other matters, such as personal information, personal affairs and information which may be regarded as confidential for a range of other reasons, but the overwhelming majority of freedom of information requests are dealt with in an expeditious, open and timely manner.

There will always be, as I said in my earlier comments, instances where there is disagreement about what information should be subject to release and what should not. There are mechanisms for review of that in certain circumstances, and there are other mechanisms which require the minister to justify why certain information should not be released. I think those are appropriate checks and balances in the system. At the end of the day, the best safeguard we have in this regard is the ability of parliament to scrutinise the operations of the executive in these matters and of the media to do likewise. These are all sensible and important elements of a regime that keeps elected governments accountable in terms of what information is and is not made publicly available.

I do not accept the critique that our regime is regressive, unhelpful or designed to restrict information. The facts simply do not stack up in regard to that argument. The amendments that we are debating today provide for clarification of matters that the parliament’s own committee has said need to be clarified, and the government, quite reasonably, has worked to do that. I commend the amendments to the Assembly.

Question put:

That amendments Nos 1 to 4 be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .