Page 1341 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I think it is an interesting contrast to note that, whilst this bill proposes exempting police and law enforcement altogether, India’s Right to Information Act 2005 allows for a maximum of 48 hours for dealing with requests for information where it is considered to be crucial to securing the life or liberty of a person. It certainly is the other end of the spectrum.
It is worth making the point that, whilst the government under the leadership of the current Chief Minister have gone to considerable lengths to undertake to be open and accountable and be a leader in government openness, they have proposed what is probably the least ambitious of any of the recent reforms when it comes to freedom of information. Even the New South Wales Government Information (Public Access) Act goes considerably further than the government’s proposals.
The changes proposed in this bill essentially make the same changes as were made in 2010 to the commonwealth act. If you have a look at the Senate inquiry into those changes, you can see that the majority of the submissions to that inquiry, including those by Professor Patterson, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, the CPSU, the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, the Australian Press Council, the Australian Law Reform Commission and the ARC, all supported further changes to improve the scheme. It is also worth noting that in our own committee inquiry into freedom of information the majority of submitters were strongly in favour of reforms to substantially increase the provision of government information.
The government’s bill is certainly an improvement on what we currently have. However, I think the issues and examples I have highlighted clearly indicate that it is not the best scheme available to us and that further changes can and should be made. The changes that have occurred in other jurisdictions over the last few years have been significant and it is disappointing that a government that has repeatedly said that it wants to lead the field in openness and transparency has proposed changes that are significantly behind the leaders.
That point made, I would like to acknowledge that the government have been very willing to engage with us on the changes. Similarly I would like to acknowledge that, because the Greens were not able to prepare our amendments in time for today’s debate, we will be adjourning it so that the other parties do have the opportunity to consider our proposed changes. And I thank both parties for being patient and for being willing to engage in the detailed policy discussion.
On the broader issue of accountability and the culture of secrecy, it is also important to note that the freedom of information scheme does not exist in isolation and needs to be seen as a part of a broader system of government accountability. This includes officers of the parliament and integrity agencies such as the Auditor-General, the Ombudsman and the Human Rights Commission as well as other legislative schemes such as the Public Interest Disclosure Act and the ADJR act. It is worth noting that the Public Interest Disclosure Act is currently under review and that the Greens agree that reforms are very much needed and support efforts for reform. I would also say that the Greens believe that there should be changes to the ADJR act, most notably to the standing requirements to ensure the accountability of decision makers.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video