Page 2753 - Week 08 - Thursday, 11 August 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
information officer from this legislation undermines the legislation fundamentally. This is the most important part of the whole bill and unpicking the role of the information officer out of this legislation will seriously unwind the push model.
As I said in my remarks in the in-principle stage, the notion of having an information officer who cannot be directed to withhold information is an extraordinarily powerful message that we are going to be appointing people who are statutorily protected. That is an extraordinarily powerful message and it will change the culture of access to information fundamentally, as it should, and we will not be supporting any undermining of that principle.
Amendments negatived.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Health, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for the Environment and Climate Change) (12.16): I move amendment No 6 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 2854]. This deals with the public interest test.
Clause 17 sets out how the public interest is to be assessed when determining whether to release or refuse to release under the new scheme. Government amendment 6 omits clause 17(2)(d) which provides that when determining whether or not to release information the fact that access could result in confusion or unnecessary debate is not a factor to be taken into consideration. The issue with clause 17(2)(d) is that it precludes any weight being given to whether the information could cause confusion or unnecessary debate by the applicant.
The crucial role of government is to uphold the rule of law and to make sure that society is able to function. There are occasions where this purpose may be best served through not releasing information which could prove to be counterproductive to these aims.
The amendment recognises that the government does have responsibility for information with which it is entrusted and there is a responsibility not to release information in circumstances where it would serve no other purpose than to cause confusion or unnecessary debate.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (12.17): The Canberra Liberals will be opposing this amendment. You have to give the attorney credit for his sort of high-minded rhetoric but we are upholding the rule of law and therefore we cannot actually create a situation that might in some circumstances result in confusion or unnecessary debate. I am not entirely sure I know what unnecessary debate is. I would have thought that in the public arena, if people want to express an opinion, it is very rarely unnecessary. It might be inconvenient; we may not want to hear it, but one of the things that I think we might have learnt this year in the festival of democracy is that people do not take kindly to being disregarded and having their opinions disregarded and that—what people in the commentariat might consider extraordinary—the election result that we have seen is quite frankly a manifestation of people who are sick and tired of not having their opinions heard and we who know better perhaps considering their contribution to the debate unnecessary.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video