Page 2620 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 2 July 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Opposition members interjecting—
MR SPEAKER: Three warnings have been issued to that side of the house.
MR CORBELL: Part 3, section 10 of the act provides for “the right of access to a document of an agency (other than an exempt document) or an official document of a Minister (other than an exempt document)”. An official document in relation to a minister means “a document that is in the possession of the Minister in the Minister’s capacity as a Minister being a document that relates to the affairs of an agency, and includes a document that has passed from the Minister’s possession if the Minister is entitled to access the document and the document is not a document of an agency”. There are a range of other exemptions which are not relevant to our discussion today.
Mrs Dunne: Most of the speech is not relevant.
MR CORBELL: I note that the opposition are not interested in understanding how the Freedom of Information Act works, but this whole MPI is a critique of the government’s alleged unwillingness to release documents. But when the government seeks to give a clear and detailed analysis of the principles that we seek to abide by when it comes to the release of documents, they are suddenly not interested. They are either interested in a debate about the release or otherwise of documents or they are not.
Mrs Dunne: There is a different set of rules for Jon Stanhope.
MR SPEAKER: I warn you, Mrs Dunne.
MR CORBELL: You need to understand the rationale upon which the government has taken these decisions. And if you do not like it, it just shows the shallowness of your argument.
In most cases, the “documents held by a Minister and which are accessible under the FOI Act are also the documents of an agency although the Minister would be in possession of a copy of such a document if it were retained” in his or her office. It is usual, therefore, “for Ministers to transfer FOI requests to the Agency that holds the documents, so that it is the Agency which processes and makes a decision in relation to the request”. And I think that is a very pertinent point, because those opposite seek to say, “Just release them anyway.”
The point, of course, is that there is a clear statutory process for making decisions in relation to documents, including those documents that are held directly by ministers. And in no way has the opposition been able to demonstrate that this government has sought to deliberately withhold material requested through the FOI process. Indeed, we have held ourselves strictly in accordance with the FOI principles, as I am outlining today, and our commitment to ensuring that it is applied rigorously and independently. Indeed, this “operational process is essential in keeping a Minister at arms length from the process of identification, examination and decision-making in relation to release requests”.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .