Page 2737 - Week 08 - Thursday, 11 August 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
opposition have had take the process all the way through to ACAT to fight for what really is reasonably basic information provision. That decision was, as I understand it, upheld in the ACAT.
There is broadly across the Westminster system an understanding that government information should be provided publicly. However a lot of regimes, and the regimes in this place, have relied on what we would call a pull model. That is where information is only provided if and when people seek it. Sometimes it is like fishing in the dark and not knowing what information you are looking for. The legislation has been amended over the years. But there is no question that it is a frustrating system.
What this bill introduces today is a bit of a paradigm shift in that it creates a push system. Rather than having to keep seeking information—often information you do not know exists or you guess exists—this model will actually push the information out. Obviously, that needs to be balanced with the public interest test. Certain government information or information held by the government does need to be protected.
We have gone through this bill in some detail. I know that there have been a significant number of briefings and discussions. I note that there are staff here from the Liberal Party, the Labor Party and the Greens. I would like to acknowledge their roles as well—not just the MLAs—in dealing with this. I mention my chief of staff, Ian Hagan, and Kim Hosking from the minister’s office in the Labor Party, who I know has had some frustration with this process.
I can hear sometimes the conversation between her and my chief of staff almost from my office. I think that reflects the fact that this is an important issue. It is one where the detail is very important. I believe that Mr Warne-Smith has come here from interstate specifically for this piece of legislation. I acknowledge his role as well.
In respect of some of the issues that we did have concerns with, in a sense we have sought to strike a middle ground between what has been proposed by the Greens and some of the resistance to that from the government, from the Labor Party. What we have sought is a middle ground in respect of some of that information. The information that we will protect today, that we will not support automatic release of through this model, includes private health information, information relating to legal professional privilege, national security, police matters, private personal details and issues relating to cabinet in confidence.
I guess that these are self-evident and they will be dealt with in the detail stage. But with the cabinet in confidence information—I had some conversations with the Attorney-General about this the other day—I think it is important in our Westminster system of cabinet government that cabinet debate is free and frank and that the information, the brief and the advice provided to ministers is free and frank as well. If that were to be subject to automatic release, I think it would have a chilling effect potentially on the advice that is provided and the debate that would ensue.
The detail stage is going to be long. I was going to say that I look forward to it but I look forward to the conclusion of it. My colleague Mrs Dunne will be taking carriage of the detail stage on behalf of the opposition, which I welcome personally. I think
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video