Page 647 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
questionable whether the Howard government would have won the last two elections or whether the disastrous invasion of Iraq would have occurred. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and we must learn from history that people in the highest offices of the land will do their all to prevent us from being vigilant by covering up the true facts and policy directions with which they seek to steer us.
I am not arguing that national security information should be made publicly available, as I have already stated. The case I am making is that governments and public servants develop vested interests in withholding information which are at odds with the interests of the community. They should not be able to hide behind the cloak of national security or any other grounds for secrecy that can be abused. This being the case, the basis and veracity of their claims for exempting information should always be subject to scrutiny and final review by appropriately qualified and trustworthy individuals, such as Supreme Court judges. Conclusive certificates remove this essential element of oversight, and I am extremely pleased that the Liberal Party will join with the Greens in voting them out of existence.
A 2006 report by the commonwealth Ombudsman recommended that agency heads issue a clear statement to staff expressing a commitment to sound FOI practice and the goals of the Freedom of Information Act. This was not done in the last term of government in the ACT. Even after the ACT Auditor-General subsequently issued a highly critical report into FOI practices in the ACT, the government still has not issued a whole-of-government directive that the objects of the Freedom of Information Act are to be strictly adhered to, that agencies should err on the side of releasing documents, that political embarrassment is not grounds for exemption and that FOI officers will be supported and not penalised if they approach their tasks in this spirit.
On his very first day in the oval office, President Barack Obama issued a directive to all departments and agencies within the executive branch to administer the Freedom of Information Act with a clear presumption, with respect to the release of government records, that in the face of doubt, openness prevails. After an Ombudsman’s report, a critical Auditor-General’s report and a newly professed belief in openness and transparency, why are we still waiting for the ACT government to issue such a simple and unambiguous directive here in this jurisdiction? It is a question that remains open and is one that is well worth exploring.
Clause 5.3 of the current Greens-Labor agreement commits the parties to the completion of an inquiry within 12 months into the reform of freedom of information legislation, including the appointment of an independent information commissioner. There is now consensus amongst the Australian Law Reform Commission, the Administrative Review Council, the commonwealth Ombudsman and the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee that many of the shortcomings in the current operation and effectiveness of freedom of information acts could be addressed with the establishment of a constant, independent monitor.
In the spirit of cooperative and collaborative politics that the Greens hope to engender in this Assembly, we will be working with Mrs Dunne to develop suitable terms of reference for a comprehensive inquiry into the freedom of information regime. I think
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .