Page 666 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
am about to go through demonstrates, there is plenty of scope to ensure that, with respect to those documents that perhaps are best kept from public eyes, either for a period of time or forever, there is plenty of scope there already.
Section 32 states that the various exemptions do not limit each other. This means that numerous exemption provisions can, and are, claimed for individual documents. You will see multiple reasons being stacked up there. Section 33 relates to documents exempt under a commonwealth act. Section 34—documents affecting relations with the commonwealth and the states. Section 35—executive documents, and I note this is the principal provision that would be relied upon to withhold cabinet documents. Section 36—internal working documents. Section 37—documents affecting enforcement of the law and protection of public safety. Section 37A—documents affecting national security, defence or international relations. Section 38—documents to which secrecy provisions of enactments apply. Section 39—documents affecting financial or property interests of the territory. Section 40—documents concerning certain operations of agencies. Section 41—documents affecting personal privacy. Section 42—documents subject to legal professional privilege. Section 43—documents relating to business affairs. Section 44—documents affecting the economy. Section 45—documents containing material obtained in confidence. Section 46—documents the disclosure of which would be in contempt of the Legislative Assembly or a court. Section 47—certain documents arising out of companies and securities legislation. And, finally, section 47A—electoral rolls and related documents.
I think members will agree that that is a lot of exemptions. Forgive me for reading them out at such great length, but I think it is important in the context of this debate, where there is some suggestion that, in taking the position that we have, the Greens and the Liberals are creating uncertainty or that they are creating fear in the public service that people cannot be forthright in their advice to government.
Other jurisdictions have far broader release of information provisions than exist even in Australia. Norway and Sweden are amongst the most open societies on earth, and I have not seen any evidence that those societies’ governments are unable to operate efficiently. In fact, that part of the world is renowned for its efficiency.
I suspect the Labor government’s attempts to be allowed to operate in secrecy are based on a lack of confidence in the professionalism of their own public servants. I can only speculate that that is the reason, because I have not heard a better one. And they are possibly even a hangover of the last term of government, where they were able to do whatever they pleased.
It is for those reasons that I will not be supporting this amendment. If the minister has better arguments than those contained in portions of a single Queensland FOI review paper—and I think Mrs Dunne’s comments just now were also very useful in enlightening us in the context of that review paper—then he will be free to present those arguments to the justice and community safety committee, where I believe the inquiry will take place, when we look at the necessary review of the territory’s freedom of information laws.
I will now refer to proposed section 11(1B)(b). Appropriation decisions are arguably one of the most important decisions the government makes. How public money is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .