Page 1758 - Week 05 - Thursday, 2 April 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
provided, in the government’s perspective, a balanced and rounded view of the better provision of information under an FOI regime but also had regard to the interaction between the need to provide information—indeed, the right to make information available to citizens—and the ongoing functioning of the executive government and the level of confidentiality that sometimes tracks to the deliberations of the executive government. Solomon understood broadly the interplay that exists between these two often competing requirements of FOI legislation, and the government’s amendments are intended to try to equally place this inquiry in that context.
Speaking to my amendments specifically, first of all I am proposing that a range of, if you like, elements of the operation of freedom of information legislation should be placed into the terms of reference as a precursor and, if you like, a setting of the context in which the inquiry should take place. Those are principles such as recognising that the territory’s Human Rights Act does provide for the protection of an essential right to seek, receive and impart information; that it is essentially part of the right of freedom of expression; that the access to government information is fundamental to openness, transparency and accountability; that the disclosure can have prejudicial effects on private or public interests in some circumstances; that the Freedom of Information Act has to achieve a balance between these competing interests; and that it is timely to review the act, given it has been 20 years since it was first brought into effect in the territory.
It goes on also to remind the committee that, in its deliberations, it should be aware of the fact that our act is modelled on the commonwealth’s Freedom of Information Act and that it is important to consider changes to the commonwealth regime in the context of potential reforms to our act.
Mrs Dunne: Duh, Simon.
MR CORBELL: I think that is a truly insightful and helpful contribution from Mrs Dunne. If only we could say that on all of the occasions when we think it is warranted in this place, particularly in relation to comments from the opposition. But I will not respond further to the interjection.
The government also believes it is appropriate that the committee has regard to the work of the Queensland FOI independent review panel, and that is effectively the work of the Solomon review. Those are all reasonable and, I think, important matters that should be provided to the committee to provide the context in which the committee undertakes this quite large and detailed inquiry.
Further, there are a number of changes to the actual detailed terms of reference. First of all, the government believes it is appropriate for the committee to have particular regard to issues on achieving the balance between providing information and the costs of doing so and often the impact that very large-scale FOI requests can have on the general administration of the territory.
In small government agencies such as those that we have in the ACT, it is often the case that large and sweeping FOI reforms can take up the work of a number of officers, often to the detriment of the ongoing policy and administrative work of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .