Page 2741 - Week 08 - Thursday, 11 August 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I will move today add to schedule 1 material obtained in confidence, a general exemption for secrecy provisions in other territory laws, and for personal privacy information.
In addition, the bill overrides provisions of other laws that prohibit disclosure, making all government-held information, even an individual citizen’s personal information, vulnerable to public release. It is true that the bill lists information governed by certain laws—for example, the Health Records Act 1997 and the Children and Young People Act 2008—as taken to be against the public interest to disclose. But this does not remove the obligation to apply the public interest test to that information and nor does it remove the discretion to release that information to the public.
To undo the policy which has gone into each piece of legislation affecting an individual citizen’s personal privacy, where the secrecy of specified information has been determined as important enough for a specific protection in another territory law, is both presumptuous and dangerous. For this reason, I will be moving amendments to remove clause 12 of the bill entirely as this clause overrides existing law that the parliament has passed that specifically exempts certain documents from public release due to their sensitive nature.
Furthermore, I will move an amendment to exclude entirely information in a health record under the Health Records (Privacy and Access) Act 1997. Quite frankly, Madam Deputy Speaker, I find it extraordinary that Mr Rattenbury believes that it is reasonable to subject a person’s individual health record to assessment as to whether or not it should be released under his proposed bill.
It is not only personal information that the bill fails to safeguard, but also the information of third-party organisations. The requirement to subject material obtained in confidence to the public interest test, potentially for the purpose of public release, may compromise the functions of government. Third parties, such as the commonwealth and other government bodies, as well as industry and commercial entities, may be reluctant to share information and engage in open and frank deliberations with the government.
This has the potential to dissuade organisations from contracting with the government, decreasing the choice available to government in tender arrangements. This can also compromise the quality of the government’s infrastructure, ICT and other projects, as well as potentially increasing cost if competition decreases.
For applications that involve third-party information, whether that be information relating to an individual, business or other entity, the government amendments extend the requirement to consult with them from 15 working days to 20 working days. This would give third parties more time to consider information that affects them and allow them time to seek legal advice and gives agencies time to incorporate this advice into their decision. Allowing appropriate time for consultation is fundamental to the operation of a good freedom of information scheme.
The bill places further cost uncertainty on the government through the creation of a new role for the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is intended to replace
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video