Page 162 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 10 December 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Even the commonwealth has recognised the need for reform of our freedom of information laws and, as a first step, has introduced the Freedom of Information (Removal of Conclusive Certificates and Other Measures) Bill 2008 in the past fortnight. Like the Canberra Liberals’ bill, this bill seeks to fulfil an election commitment of the Rudd government. In terms of conclusive certificates, the commonwealth’s bill goes further than the one that I table today. It also eliminates the use of conclusive certificates in matters of national security. In doing so, however, it exempts a range of security agencies from the freedom of information process.
The bill that I present today does not go as far as eliminating the use of conclusive certificates in matters of national security. This is a matter requiring further consideration in light of the commonwealth’s approach before we make any changes in this very important area.
As I said earlier, this bill is the start of a much broader review of our FOI laws in the ACT. The commonwealth has recognised this need and has also embarked on a full review process, as too have the Queensland government and the Victorian government. However, any review we undertake must engage the community, since it is the community that is served by the Freedom of Information Act.
One of the areas of review relates to existing conclusive certificates and whether and when they should be revoked. This is a matter I intend to pursue on behalf of the Canberra Liberals and, if required, I will introduce further reforming legislation in the new year to address this issue.
Freedom of information is a right and not a privilege for the people of the ACT. In an environment of openness, accountability, transparency and good governance, governments should not be afraid to provide citizens, the people who elect them, with access to the documents that affect their lives. In truth, there are some exceptions to this rule, but these exceptions should only be made in the best interests of the citizens and with the community at the top of our mind. Exceptions should never be used to hide bad government decisions. They should never be used to put up barriers between governments and citizens. They should absolutely never be used by ministers and bureaucrats to hide behind as a shield for professional negligence or recklessness.
If ministers and bureaucrats are prepared to take decisions that affect the lives of citizens, they should be prepared to show citizens how those decisions were made. Good information and good advice will lead to good decisions, and the opposite is also true. But rather than use FOI laws to protect their patches, governments, ministers and bureaucrats should use FOI laws as a positive demonstration of that transparency and accountability we all talk about but sometimes do not like in action.
Recently, Mr Philip Dorling in the Canberra Times addressed what needed to happen to ensure that we have FOI reform. I note in passing that it is ironic to see Mr Dorling’s by-line on issues relating to freedom of information when one realises that in a former life he was a member of the Chief Minister’s Department and he in fact was the signatory on conclusive certificates that prevented me gaining access to documents in relation to school closures. But that is all forgiven now, as Mr Dorling in his new life has shown a great deal of perspicacity. I think that the headline of his
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .