Page 2789 - Week 08 - Thursday, 11 August 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
light of the discussion here, there is a clear preference in the Assembly that it be five years. I think that is fine. It is still a significant step forward that these documents will be in a push scheme.
Finally, on the definition of policy document, whilst we do not think it is necessary to add draft documents in the definition, because it is not included in the Queensland act, I do not see any substantial harm in this amendment.
Amendments 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) (4.12): I seek leave to move amendments Nos 13, 14, 16 to 20, 23 to 25, 27, 29, 30, 32 to 36, 38, 39, 42 to 44, 46, 47, 59, 62, 64, 66, 68 and 69 circulated in my name together.
Leave granted.
MR CORBELL: I move amendments Nos 13, 14, 16 to 20, 23 to 25, 27, 29, 30, 32 to 36, 38, 39, 42 to 44, 46, 47, 59, 62, 64, 66, 68 and 69 circulated in my name together [see schedule 2 at page 2854]. The amendments deal with the Ombudsman and internal review.
As I have said in the debate in the in-principle stage, the government seeks to omit part 7, as the role of the Ombudsman as articulated in the bill is unnecessary and detracts from the operation of the act in that it transfers a routine internal function from directorates to an external third party. This will have significant cost implications, in the order of $785,000 in the first year of operation and ongoing costs of over $600,000 per year: in excess of $2.6 million over four years. Not only is the mechanism costly, but it weakens the capacity and engagement of directorates in the FOI process.
The scrutiny of bills committee, in their recent, unanimous report on this bill, reiterated that having three tiers of decision-making necessarily adds to the delay in obtaining a final decision on an application for a document. The government is concerned to maintain the strength of agency commitment to open and transparent management of information. Removing responsibility for FOI decision-making and review undermines community confidence in our public servants. There is a role for the Ombudsman and that is dealing with complaints about the process and review of the administrative systems in place to manage FOI requests.
The time allotted to executive business having expired, the debate was interrupted in accordance with standing order 77. Ordered that the time allotted to executive business be extended to allow the Assembly to complete its consideration of the Freedom of Information Bill 2016.
MR CORBELL: As I was saying, there is a role for the Ombudsman, and that is dealing with complaints about the process and review of the administrative systems in place to manage FOI requests. The government considers that the appropriate role for the Ombudsman is looking at the systemic issues in the FOI system rather than
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video