Page 652 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
out by Mr Seselja, but there were a range of provisions that made it easier for officials and ministers to issue conclusive certificates. Until today, or until last December, the only reforms that we have seen from the Stanhope government in seven years in government were the reforms of Simon Corbell in 2007 which made it harder for members of the public to get access to information.
I recall quite distinctly the day in the run-up to the election campaign when I was approached by a journalist to say that the government had said that after the election it would abolish conclusive certificates. I laughed out loud. It was a laugh-out-loud moment, after years of fighting the Stanhope government, to suddenly find that in the eleventh hour in the run-up to the election—things were not looking as rosy as they thought they were; they knew that they were on the nose—suddenly they had become FOI reformers.
We saw the colour of Mr Corbell’s FOI reforms when he tabled his Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2008 (No 2), and we see that he has created a whole series of classes of documents which it was previously possible to ask for under the Freedom of Information Act. They may have become exempted through the operation of the act, but at least you could ask for them. Suddenly you cannot even ask for those documents under the Freedom of Information Act. This is reform in the words of Simon Corbell—
Mr Corbell: Do you think you should be allowed to ask for the cabinet notebook?
MRS DUNNE: In response to Mr Corbell’s interjection—and he asked this rhetorically in his speech—I think that it is reasonable that a member of the public may ask for a note from cabinet. I have done it myself.
Mr Corbell: The cabinet notebook?
It is reasonable —the minister said it is the cabinet notebook, and anything else that might be a bit like that—to ask for it. It is also reasonable for a decision maker to look at the decision, to look at the document and see whether it is in the public interest to release it.
It is in the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act and the spirit of the objects to work in favour of releasing documents. It is my experience that from time to time documents that have been prepared for cabinet have been released in freedom of information requests. In relation to the closure of west Belconnen district high school, I received documents which were prepared for cabinet. So it is not unimaginable that cabinet-type documents might be released under the Freedom of Information Act or in any other way.
The comments made by Mr Seselja are important. The exemptions in this legislation do not make it the case that if something fits within the exemption they may not be released. There are many paths to go down. You can take the Jon Stanhope and Simon Corbell approach. You can take the approach signalled by the Chief Minister when he essentially gave riding instructions to FOI officers: “You look at these documents and you see if there is an exemption. And if there is an exemption, do not release them.”
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .