Page 2742 - Week 08 - Thursday, 11 August 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
not only some of the functions of the efficient and effective ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal; it is also intended to replace the function currently provided for an existing law known as internal review.
Internal review is critical for strengthening government decision-making processes. It saves costs by avoiding technical issues and mistakes being unnecessarily referred to an external decision-maker. I note that the scrutiny of bills committee in its report on the bill in this place has raised the same concern.
The government amendments I will move today therefore remove the new role for the Ombudsman from the regime. Removing the Ombudsman’s responsibilities for merits review, monitoring and reporting on the act’s operations, and making freedom of information guidelines will save $785,000 in the first year of operation alone and over $600,000 in each subsequent year. This amendment would save the public purse over $2.5 million over four years, whilst still allowing for independent external review through the mechanisms already provided for in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
The government’s amendments also seek to reintroduce internal review and remove the expensive and unnecessary concepts of information officer and principal officer within directorates. This will negate the need for multiple officers and put in a place a scheme which is practical and efficient.
It is worth drawing to the Assembly’s attention that even if this bill is supported today, with government amendments, the new freedom of information scheme is anticipated to cost the government over $1.76 million to implement, with operating costs increasing each year.
When presenting the bill in May, Mr Rattenbury declared that many Western democracies espouse values of openness and transparency and a desire to govern in the public interest, within a culture of protectiveness and secrecy. I can say firmly that this is not the case for the ACT. We do govern with openness and accountability. We do seek at all times to act in the best interests of the community we seek to serve. We do seek to collaborate and consult with industry, other governments, public advocacy groups and the broader community to develop ways to govern that are as inclusive as they can be.
It is necessarily the case that some information must be kept confidential. But this requirement is not to add to a screen of secrecy. This requirement is aimed at protecting information which, by its very nature, is universally accepted as against the public interest to disclose. These protections were recognised by the Hawke review of the commonwealth Freedom of Information Act as providing “the confidentiality necessary for the proper workings of government”.
To act in the best interests of the community, an effective and efficient freedom of information scheme must strike the appropriate balance between the public’s right to disclosure and the protection of information for the good working of government. The bill fails in this aim in the form it has been presented to us today.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video