Page 1888 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 25 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Seselja has been advised of that provision in writing by the delegated official in relation to this FOI request, and he has been advised when he can expect access to a raft of other documents, subject to the section 27 requirement to consult with third parties. He was advised, in writing, as recently, I believe, as yesterday, that the department was finalising consultations with a third party in relation to that raft of documents, which he now claims to have been wilfully withheld by me.
The Leader of the Opposition has received a preliminary release of information in response to this freedom of information request. We know it, because we have seen him paw over it and search for the elusive and non-existent smoking gun. We also know that he has been advised that material has not yet been provided because it falls under that third-party provision. He knows this, yet he pretends again in his presentation today that it has been wilfully withheld, not that it has been actually considered in the context of the legal statutory responsibilities of an FOI decision maker and that the material will be provided consistent with the act, in due course. He again misleads and challenges that it was I who withheld the information when I have, under the law, absolutely no role in its release.
It may be that some of this material will be provided—I am sure it will be, once the third parties have been given an opportunity to view and comment upon it. I do not know that for sure, because I am not involved in the process, but I do have faith in the process. The Leader of the Opposition does not. He has not even been willing to wait for those legislative processes to run their course, and he has pre-empted the process and accused me of withholding information. Wrong on both counts, Mr Seselja. The decision to release or withhold is not mine. Under the law, the clock is still ticking in relation to the material.
Interestingly, the same rules of disclosure and exemption apply, of course, whichever party is in government. The Leader of the Opposition has been keen to display pages with black boxes on them as supposed proof of this government’s secretive nature. If we are going in for visual stunts, perhaps I ought to parade in front of the cameras the following documents. I have one small example here today. It is my last request of the then Liberal government in relation to Bruce Stadium. This was the document released by the then Liberal government to me when I was the Leader of the Opposition and sought documents in relation to Bruce Stadium, that particular fiasco.
That was a decision made by a delegated FOI officer when the Liberal Party was in government. That is how the system works. That is how the FOI act works, Mr Seselja. That is how it has always worked and that is how it still works. Those decisions to deny me access to documents in relation to Bruce Stadium were made by a designated FOI officer. I never thought for one minute that they were decisions made at the whim or direction of a Liberal Party minister at the time. Page after page is blacked out. I have no doubt that they were blacked out for precisely the same sorts of reasons that segments of the pages paraded by the Leader of the Opposition have been blacked out.
Mr Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition has concerns about the Freedom of Information Act, the way to address them is not to provide misleading information around the reasons for their non-disclosure. It is not clear what he hopes to achieve by
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .