Page 286 - Week 01 - Thursday, 11 December 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (10.50): I move:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
The Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2008 (No 2) introduces amendments to the Freedom of Information Act 1989 to remove the conclusive certificates in relation to executive documents under section 35 of that act and internal working documents under section 36. It does not affect conclusive certificates in relation to national security considerations.
I am pleased to be introducing this bill today in fulfilment of an election commitment made by the Labor Party in the most recent ACT election. As the government, the ACT Liberals and ACT Greens committed in election statements to the removal of these conclusive statement certificates, I will not dwell on the reasons for such removal, except to state that the removal of these conclusive certificates will promote and enhance open government and open up decisions to merit review. It is consistent with changes flagged in other Australian jurisdictions, including the commonwealth, on which the territory’s act is based.
The bill, however, makes provision to exclude certain documents from coverage under the FOI legislation, and I am aware that the Assembly may be concerned about the proposed removal. In this regard I am referring to the exclusion of question time briefings, incoming government briefings, annual estimates briefs and cabinet notebooks.
The removal of conclusive certificates for executive documents has raised the question of the status of these documents in relation to the appropriateness of disclosure. Few jurisdictions in the Westminster system, with good reason, release these types of documents under FOI legislation, finding exemptions and exclusions to refuse access. This is not the experience of the territory, where opposition parties—and I include Labor in this—have traditionally requested and received such documents.
However, I draw members’ attention to the findings of the Queensland Freedom of Information Independent Review Panel, chaired by Mr Solomon, which reviewed Queensland’s Freedom of Information Act and reported in June 2008. The report at chapter 8.3 provides a comprehensive and detailed study of the issues about such documents and argues that to preserve and promote individual ministerial responsibility, to ensure free, fearless and frank advice, certain communications between government and its public service advisers must be protected. This reinforces the personal, individual responsibility of ministers and their ability to govern effectively and to account to parliament and its committees appropriately. It is in the public interest to preserve the confidentiality of this kind of advice.
We all know when in government that the effectiveness of these documents is compromised by the knowledge that such documents may be disclosed under the legislation as it currently stands. The government is committed to a review of the FOI act and wide consultation on a range of possible reforms. The issue of how cabinet or
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .