Page 2754 - Week 08 - Thursday, 11 August 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
As I am wont to say, people out there pay our salaries and they are entitled to be engaged. If in the process of being engaged they are confused perhaps it is our job to smooth out that confusion. And if there is debate which we might consider unnecessary or some bureaucrat might consider unnecessary perhaps it is the first time that that person has engaged in the issue. I think that it is very unlikely that we will find very many circumstances of unnecessary debate. We will not be supporting this amendment.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (12.19): This amendment and the following one, No 7, form part of what are known as the Howard factors. They are universally recognised as inconsistent with the object of freedom of information and are condemned by experts in the field. They invite speculation by agencies and have been used as an excuse not to release information that should otherwise be released. They are at odds with the underlying principle of the bill, which is to give everyone an equal right to access information.
Consideration of what the applicant might do with the information invites one to say, “Well, might a different applicant behave differently?” As Mrs Dunne has said, to suggest that the release of information would invite unnecessary debate does not sit very well with our community. I think the community can decide whether there is a necessary debate to be had or not.
Amendment 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) (12.20): I move amendment No 7 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 2854].
This amendment omits clause 17(2)(e), which provides that when determining whether or not to release information the fact that access could result in mischievous conduct by the applicant is not a factor to be considered. As I previously discussed, this clause precludes any weight being given to whether the information could be used for a mischievous purpose by the applicant. However, there are times when the purpose of responsible governing will be best served through not releasing certain information.
Let us take as a hypothetical example where the government is considering two potential means—option A and option B—to implement a new program. During the course of developing the scheme it becomes apparent that option A has a fundamental flaw and results in the government changing its delivery mechanism to option B. The new scheme with the option B delivery mechanism has now been implemented and there is an application for information relating to the development of the scheme. The applicant intends to publicise the information relating to how the scheme would have been delivered under option A for mischievous reasons, yet under the public interest test that is provided for in the bill, this is not permitted to be taken into account in making a decision on the release of the information.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video