Page 349 - Week 02 - Thursday, 8 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
always a balancing act between public interest reasons for and against releasing a document. It is always possible to come up with one facile reason why a document should be exempt. This is what Rick Snell, administrative law lecturer at the University of Tasmania and arguably Australia’s leading expert on FOI, said about McKinnon:
The majority decision of the High Court effectively opens the gates fairly wide for this government and future governments to use conclusive certificates fairly freely and without having to meet very high thresholds in making them valid. So you will see the increasing issuing of conclusive certificates and them being unable to be challenged effectively.
Professor Klugman, President of Civil Liberties Australia, agrees with Mr Snell. She states:
Conclusive certificates mean a department can stop an FOI request dead in its tracks, and suppress information without an effective right of review or appeal. They can, and have been, abused by government departments and ministers.
On the 7.30 Report, Michael Brissenden had this to say:
These days the Federal Labor Party says they will scrap the use of conclusive certificates. Mark Latham took that policy to the last election and it remains Federal Labor policy. The fact is, though, that State Labor Governments, holding the reins of power don’t seem to share the reformist’s zeal.
He has nailed it there. I wonder whether he has reflected on the corrosive influence that majority government has had on the ideals of Labor governments. Whether it is in the area of openness and transparency in preparing budget papers, closing libraries, engaging in public consultation, or stifling public input into urban planning developments, this government’s reformist zeal has disappeared up its own self-interest. At least it will be well illuminated the next time the Labor Party finds itself in opposition. A long stint in opposition has obviously worked its magic on Nicola Roxon, Labor’s federal shadow attorney-general. This is what she said about the growing phenomenon of conclusive certificates and opportunist state Labor governments eagerly grabbing this latest “get out of jail free when we have stuffed up again” card:
We don’t control the state Labor governments. We actually think it’s really important when the Howard Government is closing down every other avenue of review, whether it’s in the Senate or how they deal with the media or the way they gag debate in the house, this is another tool they are using to stop there being public debate and public scrutiny and we don’t think they should be allowed to get away with it.
Would the Attorney-General like to respond to his federal counterpart in his closing speech? Just a word to his advisers: I suggest they avoid including self-serving platitudes about how these laws will increase security or thwart terrorists. These laws may thwart terrorism in extreme circumstances but there are existing ways to achieve that result if those extreme circumstances eventuate. Contrary to the government’s assertions there are far less restrictive ways to achieve that result.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .