Page 1296 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
also be considered. This has been applied to criteria by which the public interest test applies to conditionally exempt documents, and this is the fourth key element of the government’s bill.
In general we support the approach but note that once again it is at odds with the JACS committee’s recommendations that there should be a single public interest test applying to all documents; there should be no necessity for a blanket exemption on certain documents. The public interest test comprises a list of prescribed relevant and irrelevant factors in the consideration process. These criteria are important, but I consider the government’s approach leaves the way open to interpretation. Accordingly I will be proposing amendments that will tighten these criteria.
It is interesting to see the list of things that should not be taken into consideration; one of them was that the receiver of the document might misconstrue the information. It is interesting that, at the same time as the government was tabling this legislation that has these provisions in it, members of the opposition were receiving decisions to exempt documents under FOI requests using that very criterion: “We will not give you this document because you may misunderstand it.” That was a decision given on internal review as to why a member of the opposition could not receive particular documents. So there is a long way to go in the ACT public service to send out the message that this government is supposedly all about openness and accountability.
The Chief Minister talks about openness and accountability—it is her constant theme—but there is very little that we see of it. It is easy to talk about it. But we do not see it. We have seen some little changes, but in the real spirit of the application of freedom of information the experiences of members of this place in attempting to obtain documents show that the Chief Minister’s message has not got out there.
As I said to some colleagues the other day, I am like any opposition member in any parliament: I am in favour of open government. But I think you actually need to have more strings to your bow than just talking about open government, because open government does not address issues of housing affordability or cost of living or the cost of childcare. And no amount of openness will change the cost of childcare or address the appalling state of housing affordability that we see in the ACT.
Finally, the bill revokes conclusive certificates issued prior to 2009. Anyone seeking to access documents that were protected under revoked conclusive certificates will need to make a fresh FOI request, and release of these documents will then be considered according to the new laws. I can hardly wait: my FOI request for all those documents excluded under conclusive certificate for the school closures is drafted, poised, ready for my signature and dating when this legislation becomes live, so I am putting people on notice.
In future, conclusive certificates will only be available to relevant ministers for documents that go to matters of national security, defence or international relations. This is something that I personally support. When the Canberra Liberals moved to remove conclusive certificates in late 2008, early 2009, this was an area that we decided was a no-go area. It is a matter that needs to be dealt with sensitively in consultation with our federal colleagues.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video