Page 1761 - Week 05 - Thursday, 11 May 2017

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

---

The second point I would make, because Mr Rattenbury thinks that I have got a creepy obsession with what he says—so I will add to that creepy obsession—is that the member missed it in the paper. It is Mr Rattenbury’s directorate. I quote the headline “Rattenbury Directorate cops flack over slow FOI response”. It seems that the champion of FOI reform, again, not only is delaying the terms of the new FOI legislation but his directorate is not even complying with the existing legislation, which is very disappointing.

I was remiss when I spoke at the in-principle stage in not thanking the staff who have prepared much of this bill. I know that a lot of the legislation today has been developed through the directorate. I would also like to thank the minister’s staff, again, for their cooperative briefings and engagement.

MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong) (6.52): So that the Assembly record is clear, the bit of that article that Mr Hanson failed to read out about the delayed FOI application at my directorate contains a section where I apologised personally to the applicant. This delay should not have happened and my directorate did make a mistake. The directorate has apologised. I have apologised to the applicant on Twitter. I think the sign of somebody’s integrity is their willingness to admit when they are wrong. We have also instituted a process to ensure that the directorate has better processes for processing applications on time; but Mr Hanson forgot to read that bit of the article out because it did not suit his narrative.

Question put:

That clause 19 be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 19 agreed to.

Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video