Page 1295 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
noted that a future bill would introduce further amendments to the objects clause. I asked myself and I asked the attorney at the time why he did not take the opportunity that he had before him when he introduced this bill to fix this now. I have subsequently signalled to the attorney that I was not prepared to debate this bill until he came up with his further amendments to the objects clause, which he has subsequently done, and I thank the attorney for that.
The objects clause is to set the scene for this legislation. The scene we are supposed to be setting here is one of openness in government, one of accessibility to information and one of honesty with the people of the ACT. We are supposed to be saying to the people of Canberra that they have a clear right of access to government-held information unless there is a clear argument that that right of access is against the public interest.
The government amendments to the objects clause are tokenistic and their other amendments which the minister has circulated are still tokenistic at best and patronising at worst. So in the detail stage I will be introducing an amendment that gives more substance to the objects clause. My amendment will be to make it absolutely clear that the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act is to provide the people of Canberra with that openness, accessibility and honesty that they need and deserve.
The third key element that this bill seeks to introduce is to create a clear distinction between exempt and conditionally exempt documents. I suppose this is the area that I have most discomfort with, and both the commonwealth approach and the ACT’s approach give me some discomfort here; the whole idea of conditionally exempt documents is one that is not predicated on the notion of openness.
I have discussed with officials in passing, and I have certainly discussed it at length with my staff and advisers, how we might come up with a better term than “conditionally exempt documents”, something which is more open to disclosure, perhaps something like “conditionally available documents” rather than “conditionally exempt”. I think that this is an issue that we as a legislature need to grapple with a bit more.
The bill classifies a range of documents in both the exempt and conditionally exempt categories and demonstrates, I think, that the government is unwilling to accept the JACS committee’s recommendations to move towards a purposive rather than a categorical criterion for the release of documents. Indeed, the government’s approach in relation to executive documents really is no more open than it is under the current circumstances since we have removed conclusive certificates.
The scrutiny committee picked up on this in its observation that the bill as drafted would potentially allow a government to protect any document dealing with any topic. All the minister would need to do is to direct that the document be prepared for submission to the executive or an executive committee.
The JACS committee recommended that the exemption of documents should not apply merely to certain categories of documents but the effect of disclosure should
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video