Page 2788 - Week 08 - Thursday, 11 August 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
and I think experience will show us in future that perhaps we are being a little too cautious on this occasion.
Because we are making significant changes to the Freedom of Information Act and we are making a significant change in the culture and the architecture of the legislation, as I have said, there are some things about which I have some cause for pause. That is why I am supporting these four amendments. It is really taking a conservative approach. I do not apologise for taking a conservative approach on these issues, and I am thoughtfully supporting the position. I am not happy to support it—there are parts of me that would like to keep these things in the legislation—but I am going to take a cautious approach.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (4.09): I will speak briefly on each of the amendments.
With regard to minutes of the various government boards, councils and committees and other bodies, as members know, we have quite a range of these types of bodies, from the child death review committee and the cemeteries board to the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. There are all sorts of these committees across the government. They all perform a function in the governance of the territory and we should be able to know what they are doing. Rather than members having to ask questions about the various committees or accepting the minister saying that the advice of a particular committee is X or Y, we should be able to see what they are actually doing.
I understand that this amendment is going to be supported and that this will no longer be open access information. I think this is unfortunate. It will not only mean that information requests will have to be made for this information but also that we, as members, will not have, as a matter of course, the benefit of knowing what is happening and what the government is being advised by these bodies.
I note Mrs Dunne’s comments and I think that this is something we can potentially come back to in the future. In light of Mr Corbell’s concern about the breadth of the definition, one of course could simply work on an amendment that would address that issue if he has a concern about internal committees. But we will discuss that another day.
In relation to reports and studies, I draw members’ attention to the scheme in Victoria, which requires the government to publish a list of all reports so that at least people know that they exist. That bill went further than this and required that, unless the information was contrary to the public interest, the government was obliged to publish these reports. The obvious advantage is that, again, it would have removed the need for access requests. But also it would have improved accountability for the expenditure of public money on these reports and it would mean that we would have a better informed public debate on issues.
In terms of ministerial briefings, the inclusion of this information was recommended by the Solomon review, which was the basis for the Queensland act. That review recommended that the documents should be available after three years. However, in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video