Page 1920 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 25 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
undermines everything that he said and reinforces the arguments that Mr Seselja has brought to this place today. In answering the questions, he said:
Potential sites were considered in sequence.
They were not all on the table at once. That is what he kept saying. But in the answers to questions he said:
Potential sites were considered in sequence. The first site identified by ActewAGL was Block 7 Section 21 Hume.
Then he goes through the sequence of sites.
The final site was also part of Block 1672, but following subdivision is now Block 1671 …
The Chief Minister’s evidence at the estimates committee is, in fact, finally and conclusively undermined by his own hand in answer to a question on notice. The Chief Minister proved that he cannot take people forward on this matter. He has misled, he has obfuscated, he has twisted.
We come to the refusal to table documents. I am so glad that the Deputy Chief Minister has raised this issue. As members have said, there are in excess of 3,000 documents which, for various reasons, have not been made available to the opposition in their FOI request.
The Chief Minister, as we all remember, used to be an advocate of reform; we all remember the more open, more accountable Jon Stanhope, the Jon Stanhope who was advocating reform of the Freedom of Information Act. That Jon Stanhope has gone a long way in the other direction because he is now out in public giving false notions of what the Freedom of Information Act is all about. He actually said on radio last week:
The Freedom of Information Act requires, for a full range of exemptions of material that won’t be provided …
He goes on to explain how an FOI officer does his job:
Every time documents are released under the FOI Act the FOI officer goes through them and deletes and blacks out all the information which is exempt under the Act.
Over time the Chief Minister has sent a clear message to his officials that all exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act must be used to the maximum extent and contrary to the objects of the act which say that the use of the provisions of the act should be “exercised as far as possible to facilitate and promote, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost, the disclosure of information”. There is nothing in Jon Stanhope’s words, there is nothing in Jon Stanhope’s actions, there is nothing in his example that would give any FOI officer in this territory any thought that he should be lenient in providing information to the territory.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .