Page 351 - Week 02 - Thursday, 8 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
be issued to prevent the release of information about any and all of these incidents. It is quite possible that the government’s enthusiasm for conclusive certificates could reflect the deteriorating relationship between the government, JACS and the judiciary.
This bill is a lack of confidence vote in the judgment of the AAT or the judiciary. Could we not instead trust the AAT or the federal court on appeal to identify when the release of a document may cause damage to the security of the commonwealth or the territory? Perhaps the government has come around to agreeing with Sir Arnold Robinson, the fictional cabinet secretary in Yes, Minister. When asked about Jim’s commitment to the Labour Party policy of open government he states, “My dear boy, it is a contradiction in terms: you can be open or you can have government.”
The last conclusive certificate I am aware of was issued by the education department to prevent an MLA from getting access to documents, which could explain why particular ACT schools have been closed or will be closed. Surely this is information that an electorate, let alone an MLA, needs to make an informed opinion about the probity and wisdom of their elected representatives decision-making processes. The Austexx legal advice document I tabled on Tuesday was released only because the AAT overturned the government’s attempt to hide it from public scrutiny. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the government fought to keep it secret because it would cause political embarrassment. As it is, the government did manage to keep it secret until the issue was no longer in the media spotlight.
Trust is no longer one of the government’s strong suits, and unless it thinks the opposition can be trusted with the absolute power it is proposing to give itself it should take its federal colleagues’ advice and repeal all conclusive certificate provisions from what has become the freedom from information bill. Dr Kris Klugman had this to say about the bill we are discussing today:
I am becoming increasingly disturbed by the attitude of many ACT public servants towards FOI. Clearly they don’t believe in the objectives of the FOI Act of making information about the operation of the public service available to the community, and keeping governments accountable for their decisions. This is not open government; this is government huddled and hiding behind a wall of repression, in a bunker of silence.
Dr Klugman has called on the government to change the act to prevent the use of conclusive certificates in FOI matters, and I echo her call here today.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (11.07): I congratulate Dr Foskey on the speech that she gave, which was essentially the speech that I am about to give. What we have here today in these poor amendments to the Freedom of Information Act is the government tinkering at the edges while ignoring the real problems that underlie the operation of the Freedom of Information Act in the ACT. My knowledge of the Freedom of Information Act goes back a long way. I was one of the people in the then commonwealth department of education who set up the operation of the commonwealth Freedom of Information Act in that department, too long ago to remember. I was involved at the outset in the operation of the Freedom of Information Act and I saw the first winding back of compliance under the Labor government back then.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .