Page 654 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
before, it fails to eliminate the conclusive certificates relating to commonwealth-state relations.
Neither the government bill nor the opposition bill goes as far as the federal government’s proposed provisions in relation to national security, but I flag that I would expect that an inquiry into the operation of freedom of information which has been touched on by all members speaking should look at those issues, should consult widely and should involve the commonwealth in a process of coming to terms with how we should deal with our national security documents.
On the subject of further FOI reform, all members have spoken about the need for more comprehensive review. As a result, and as a part of kicking off that process, I have today given notice—it will be on the notice paper tomorrow—of terms of reference for reference to the justice and community safety committee for inquiry.
I put that motion on the notice paper essentially as consultation. I will be writing to a range of stakeholders to seek their views on those terms of reference. I will welcome contributions from members of the Assembly as to whether these are an appropriate set of terms of reference or whether they need to be expanded. I have had discussions with some staff in Mr Rattenbury’s office, who have suggested amendments and things that might be added to that.
I see the placing of this notice of motion on the notice paper as a beginning of the discussion about how we should proceed with an inquiry. I do not consider that everything that can be said about the inquiry is said in these terms of reference. I am open—as I think all members should be—to discussion about how we should go forward from here. I hope that over the next few weeks we can come to an agreement about what the terms of reference should be and that we can start the process—it will not be an easy process—of addressing further FOI reform.
There are issues that I will touch on in the detail stage. As an assembly, we should be proud of the fact that today we do embark upon real FOI reform for the first time. But we need to place on the record who is responsible for that reform. It is clearly not the government. The government has been dragged kicking and screaming to this place. The mere fact that the attorney, in his alternative bill, proposed such a draconian departure from current practice in the ACT, by creating whole new classes of documents that are not even subject to the act, shows just what reluctant a reformer it is.
The only thing that this government is interested in—the only reform that this government is really interested in, in its heart of hearts—is making life more difficult for people who want access to information. That stops today. The work of the Canberra Liberals and the crossbench makes sure that that stops today. Today we start the much overdue reform of freedom of information in this territory.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .