Page 1976 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 7 June 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I would like to go back to the object of the Freedom of Information Act. It states:
The object of this Act is to extend as far as possible the right of the Australian community and, in particular, the citizens of the Territory, to access to information in the possession of the Territory by—
(a) making available to the public information about the operations of agencies and, in particular, ensuring that rules and practices affecting members of the public in their dealings with agencies are readily available to persons affected by those rules and practices; and
(b) creating a general right of access to information in documentary form in the possession of Ministers and agencies, limited only by exceptions and exemptions necessary for the protection of essential public interests and the private and business affairs of persons in respect of whom information is collected and held by agencies.
So, reading directly from the object of the act, it quite clearly sets out that things affecting members of the public should be readily available to the persons affected by those rules and practices.
In the last sitting period, back in May, we had a debate on a similar and related topic about the use of community facilities zones. We talked about the fact that CF zones are vital for the community. They are designed, according to the zoning, to be used for things like places of worship, childcare centres, libraries, outdoor recreation facilities and green spaces. People want and expect to have these types of facilities close to them. One of the benefits of living in such a lovely place as Canberra is that many of us are lucky enough to have those spaces close to us, or we are aware that there is a space nearby zoned for community facilities. So we have a potential future enjoyment of those CF zones.
In this instance, as we discussed in the last sitting, it appears that the government is taking those zones away for what in effect is a residential purpose. The sad part is that our public housing tenants also have an expectation of access to those community facilities type zones, and they are being taken away from everyone in that community.
That brings me back to the point that those opposite are trying hard to make this an argument about opposition to public housing, and that is not what this is about. It demonstrates, if you like, the paucity of their argument, the fact that they are unable to back up what they are saying by this name-calling across the chamber, saying that we are anti public housing.
We have all heard from many people in this place their own personal experiences of public housing. Ms Berry, not long ago, talked about the fact that most Canberrans are in favour of public housing in their suburb. I do not think there is any doubt about that. But this particular argument is not about public housing in our suburb. It is about taking away potential community facilities and it is about transparency and accountability of the government to the public.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video