Page 2755 - Week 08 - Thursday, 11 August 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Omitting this clause from the list of factors that must not be considered in any way does not mean that whether information could be used for mischievous reasons would be a determining factor in a decision about whether or not to release information. All this does is to say that there are circumstances in which it maybe a legitimate factor that should properly be weighed up with all other factors in making a decision about whether the release of particular information is in the public interest.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (12.22): It is with some reluctance that we will be supporting this amendment from the attorney. I listened to the hypothetical, but even if someone wants to make a point about the fact that the government decided not to go down path A, but path B, any government that is confident enough should be able to defend that position if they have made the right decision. If path A is flawed, they should be able to do that. Being able to determine what is mischievous behaviour is going to be extraordinarily difficult, so putting it in makes it very difficult.
I also want to make it very clear—this was a discussion we had in our party room—that mischievous behaviour is not people who are frequent flyer users of the Freedom of Information Act. You could perhaps single out Mr Coe as an example, but people have a legitimate right to use the provisions of legislation to obtain information. I was probably a frequent flyer user before I became the Speaker, and I want to put on the record that when talking about “mischievous behaviour” we are talking about something which is venal and unworthy. The pursuit of information through freedom of information is not venal and unworthy, and just because people are regularly users of the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act they will not be considered mischievous under these provisions.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (12.24): In relation to mischievous conduct, I note that this is listed as an irrelevant factor in the Queensland act, a factor that decision-makers should not take into account, but it seems we are going to insert it into the ACT legislation. I agree with what Mrs Dunne is saying about frequent flyers; this is not how the consideration should work. I think it is unfortunate that the Assembly is going to accept that it might be possible for a decision-maker to consider this in their decision-making. It puts subjectivity in the mind of the decision-maker where they are somehow second guessing how a member of the public might use the information. I think that is an unsatisfactory situation, so the Greens will be opposing this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Health, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for the Environment and Climate Change) (12.25): I move amendment No 9 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 2854].
Clause 23(1) of the bill contains a definition of “open access information” of an agency and of a minister. This lists the categories of information that agencies will be required to routinely publish regardless of whether a request has been received. Government amendments 9 to 12 are intended to somewhat limit the scope of this open access scheme due to the overwhelming and unnecessary burden the current scope will place on the ACT public service.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video