Page 3918 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 5 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The 2006 budget was premised on the information contained in the Costello report. There have been numerous attempts through mechanisms of this house, by freedom of information, to obtain what should be a public document. Until now, the government has hidden behind a range of ruses and said, “We can’t release it because it is cabinet-in-confidence.” Making something cabinet-in-confidence does not mean that it must be kept secret. At any time a minister can say, “Even though this is a cabinet-in-confidence document, I am releasing it to the public.” This legislation makes provision for the people of the ACT to see the reasons behind the draconian cuts in the 2006 budget by releasing the Costello report.
The rest of the legislation is about making the administrative processes in relation to access to information better and clearer. Part 1.2 of the schedule amends the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1989 by inserting new section 32 (1A), which requires a respondent in a review of a decision to take all reasonable steps to assist the tribunal in making its decision. This provision almost exactly mirrors the provisions in the relatively new section 33 (1AA) of the commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. This is a simple change that makes sure that public servants are just that—that they serve the public; that, when they go to a review of a decision they have made, they assist the decision maker in coming to a conclusion about whether that original decision was a well-made one; and that they do not find means of obfuscating.
The real meat on the bones is contained in part 1.3 of the schedule. These are amendments to the Freedom of Information Act 1989 which remove the power of ministers to issue conclusive certificates under sections 35 and 36 of the act. That is in relation to cabinet documents and internal working documents. I considered removing certificates in relation to national or commonwealth-state relations matters but decided not to go there at this stage; I believe that this is something that needs to be discussed at COAG level. Some of the documents that could come under the exemptions relating to national security and commonwealth-state relations may be not documents of this territory but documents that have come into the possession of the territory. It would perhaps be inappropriate for someone to use a loophole to get these documents which otherwise may not be released. Matters in relation to national security and commonwealth-state relations need to be discussed at a national level and they need COAG agreement.
It is interesting that the new Prime Minister has made commitments to remove all conclusive certificates from the commonwealth freedom of information legislation. I ask the current attorney to take a leaf out of the book of his national leader and to follow him down the path of doing something about conclusive certificates.
Part 1.4 of the schedule removes the power of the minister to issue conclusive certificates under section 35. Part 1.5 of the schedule removes the power of the minister to issue certificates under section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act. The subsequent parts, 1.6 to 1.23, are consequential amendments to remove further references to certificates in the Freedom of Information Act.
As I have said, these laws begin the process that the Stanhope government said it would introduce when it came to power in 2001. It said that it would open the windows and let the light in; instead it has been doing business in the darkest cellars.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .