Page 667 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
spent is central to the operation of the government. The basis on which spending decisions are made is something the public has every right to be made aware of. The reasons for government spending decisions, and the actions of their agencies, is something that the government should want everyone to be aware of. Debating the merits of such decisions is a central function of the Assembly and its members.
If there was a situation where it was not appropriate, it would already be covered by the existing exemptions. It is undeniable that there are serious problems with the way FOI has been managed in the ACT, and it is disturbing that we have not heard any acknowledgement of these problems by the government in the debate today. The Auditor-General’s FOI report into the administration of the FOI Act last September confirmed that various agencies failed to provide adequate reasons statements, failed to find and release all relevant documents, failed to adequately record their decisions and failed to comply with the requirement to keep their registers up-to-date under section 8 of the FOI Act. That is a very disturbing set of findings from the Auditor-General.
TAMS in particular was exposed for having seriously substandard FOI processes. It is disturbing that all the agencies audited appeared to use high-level managers or senior executives to process any FOI requests that have political implications. Presumably, they are chosen for their political skills. While the government may try to justify this practice by saying that senior officers should make these kinds of decisions, there is sufficient evidence that FOI decisions have become improperly politicised. Under majority government, some FOI requests seem to have become exercises in political damage control. It may be that more training needs to be given to help FOI officers to understand the intricacies of the exemption provisions of the act.
The FOI decision letters that accompanied the documents released in response to Mr Seselja’s request for information about the data centre last year revealed that some agencies at least elevated their duty to protect their minister or the Chief Minister above their responsibility to ensure the fullest possible release of relevant information. Despite the government’s denials, it certainly looked as though FOI officers were responding to political pressure or were at least very inconsistent and failed to make their case when it came to making decisions about not releasing documents.
The Greens went into the election promising to review the FOI regime in the territory and committing to enhancing the quality of governance in the ACT. I cannot accept that the attorney’s proposed amendments would not be contrary to this stated aim; therefore the Greens will not be supporting the proposed amendments.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (4.39): I am disappointed that Mr Rattenbury chooses to shoot the messenger when it comes to opinions that he does not agree with. We heard that where he and Mrs Dunne effectively sought to discount the very substantive and authoritative review undertaken by Mr Solomon, on behalf of the Queensland government. That review has been acknowledged as the most contemporary, relevant, up-to-date and considered review of the operation of FOI law by academics, policy makers and right across a range of stakeholders, governments and other entities in Australia.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .