Page 2746 - Week 08 - Thursday, 11 August 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
As to the position put by Mr Corbell, I obviously have some disagreement with him, and I think that is evident to see. I believe that this legislation is consistent with the Queensland scheme and that some of the proposals put by Mr Corbell are inconsistent with the Queensland model. They actually propose to be less transparent than what is required under the current FOI Act.
As members know, there have been extensive negotiations on this bill over almost the entire term of the Assembly. I would like to take this opportunity particularly to acknowledge the staff from the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office. As I touched on in my tabling speech, the number of drafts of this bill underlines the complexity of it. The fact that this week we have finally got down to concrete amendments has put further pressure on. They have done an outstanding job in supporting the formation of this bill.
I acknowledge the fact that throughout this Assembly the Liberal Party and the Greens have probably had more differences than similarities. But in responding to this bill we have shown that, on important issues of governance where real leadership is required and politicians have to stand up and be prepared to be accountable for our actions, we can work together. I appreciate the engagement that the Liberal Party has had.
I note Mrs Dunne’s comments about timing on all of this. There is probably a whole lot we could say on that but, at the end of the day, sometimes you need to set a deadline to get to places. We have set a deadline today. We have finally got down to working out not just statements of principle but actually saying, “Where in the legislation is the concern?” In today’s debate we will draw out those points. That is the place we needed to get to.
I note the comments of the scrutiny committee. I know that Mr Corbell had some focus on that the other day. It is fair to say that I disagree with some of the comments of the scrutiny committee. As I acknowledged in the house the other day, that debate has perhaps not taken place as well as it might have. I felt that there was scope to have a robust debate with the scrutiny committee because that is where the contest of ideas must take place. I will continue to argue some of the points that the scrutiny committee has made. Nonetheless, I welcome the diligence of the scrutiny committee and will continue to debate some of these ideas in detail. I still think they have not appreciated the approach we are trying to take here. That is at the crux of this.
Mr Hanson spoke today of his concern about the automatic release of documents. There is no automatic release of documents here. Certainly under the push model there is but, even there, the public interest is taken into account. That is the very essence of this legislation. There are two bits to it: the push model, which Mrs Dunne has spoken of, and the public interest test. That public interest test remains a critical underlying benchmark when considering the release of information.
This is about cultural change. I do not see this legislation as being about risk. It is about seeing it differently. I believe that we have scope to see it differently, to take a different approach to the release of information. What will happen under this bill is well-known and well-documented. This bill picks up the vast quantities of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video