Page 356 - Week 02 - Thursday, 8 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
occur? That occurs so that our own emergency services, our own police forces and our own other instrumentalities can prepare or have regard to issues that may be matters of risk to the ACT community in terms of potential terrorist threat, other security threats and other matters that may endanger community safety. That is why we have that clause.
Mr Speaker, I have just been advised that internal working documents do have conclusive certificates, so I correct the record in that regard. Nevertheless, issues around internal working documents are all about the consideration by government of matters that are subject to government decision.
I do have to say that these clauses are not new. This government did not put these clauses in place, but they have been available and they are rarely exercised. These provisions have been in the Freedom of Information Act for an extended period. If members opposite are unhappy with that, they have it open to them to suggest that those provisions be changed. That is a matter for them.
Turning again to the issue of national security, defence and international relations, the new provisions provide for the security of the transfer and sharing of information between the commonwealth and the ACT. Without our ability to do so, without our ability to protect such documents, we simply would not be given access to them. I think it is in the public interest that the territory is aware of potential issues that may affect the security of our community through intelligence and other information gathered by commonwealth agencies and that we give it an appropriate level of protection. So that is what those provisions are there for.
I turn to the issue of clause 7 and the amendment that requests may be refused in certain circumstances. This clause deals with the issue of when does a freedom of information request impose an unfair diversion of resources in its compilation and assessment. Again, these provisions already exist in the act, but they are exceedingly general in nature. What we are seeking to achieve through these amendments is to make more explicit the grounds on which such a decision can be made and, in doing so, should this matter become a matter for review in the AAT, the tribunal would have more guidance on the factors that were brought to account in making the decision to refuse access because of the workload involved.
I draw members’ attention to those clauses, in particular clause 7 (1A), whereby the agency or the minister must have regard to the number and volume of documents and resources that would have been used in identifying, locating and collating the documents, examining the documents and consulting on them, copying the documents, preparing an itemised schedule of the documents, and notifying the applicant of any interim or final decision. So the provision makes more explicit the grounds for considering whether a request is unreasonable and that gives guidance to both officers and the AAT in the event of a review.
The provision also makes clear that there are circumstances which cannot be taken into account in having regard to these matters. For example, in making a decision as to whether it is reasonable to refuse a request because of workload, regard cannot be had to any fee or charge payable for processing the request, the reason given by the person requesting the information and also the agency’s or minister’s views as to the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .