Page 2618 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 2 July 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
withdrawal or withholding of documents in relation to the data station proposal in Tuggeranong.
I think it is important in this discussion this afternoon that we reflect on some of the principles and processes that apply to the freedom of information process, because, as the Chief Minister has said, the opposition simply have not made the case that the government has in any way sought to deliberately withhold documents in relation to this proposal. And I would like to reflect a little on the operations of the Freedom of Information Act in that regard.
It is not a secret that the aim and underlying philosophy of freedom of information legislation is to ensure that government is more open to public scrutiny and thus more accountable for its actions; further, that a community that is adequately informed and has access to information is more likely to participation in the policy-making process and in government itself. Such legislation allows groups and individuals who are affected by government decisions the right to seek access to the reasons and criteria applied in making those decisions.
FOI legislation also provides every individual with the right to know what information is held in government records about them personally, subject to certain exemptions to protect essential public interests; allows the inspections of files held about or relating to themselves; and have inaccurate material held by an agency about them corrected. The territory’s Freedom of Information Act came into force as part of self-government in the late 1980s. One of the objectives of the act is quite relevant in relation to the matter that is before us today. It states:
… 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.
The benefits flowing from such a general right of access to information relate to the concept of open government and democratic principles. Put simply, the greater the degree of information which is publicly available, the higher the quality of public debate on issues of current concern, and that has an influence on the quality of government decision making. Against this general right of access, though—and I think it is the often the point the opposition miss in this debate—the act provides for particular safeguards to protect information in certain contexts; namely, “essential public interests and the private and business affairs of persons”.
Public interest tests in general dictate the degree of weight to be given to the benefit as against the harm flowing from disclosure of information. While the public interest tests are not defined in the act, there are common law definitions that, in essence, characterise the public interest as something that is of serious concern or benefit to the public, not merely of individual interest. In other words, public interest does not mean of interest to the public but the interests of the public.
The public interest changes over time, of course, and in accordance with the individual circumstances of each case. Decision makers must have the flexibility to consider what is in the public interest by balancing all relevant considerations when
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .