Grievance Debate

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (15:37): I rise today to report to the house a matter of considerable concern arising out of the application of the freedom of information laws in this state. The Freedom of Information Act is now 20 years old, having passed in 1991, and serves to try to keep governments accountable but essentially to give individual people in the community access to public information. It has another role, but that is its principal role, which I wish to refer to today.

I was concerned to read in this month's publication of the government news that, in relation to federal government activities, South Australia is now the only state to remain outside the new model for freedom of information, according to that periodical. It is true that in the last few years other states around the country have modernised their freedom of information, including the commonwealth, which has also passed its legislation. All that is left is Victoria and us.

The Victorian government, however, has confirmed that it is introducing an information commissioner to oversee the application of their act. So, all around the country we have had reform, but not in South Australia. We have this ridiculous situation where ministers keep applications on the desk for weeks before they are released.

The government introduced regulations, members will recall, to prevent the release of any documents concerning the investigation of the Burnside council. It shut down all FOI applications to the department of primary industry, the department of local government, minister for local government's office, etc., just a blanket refusal to allow any of those documents. We will want those repealed, of course, if ever that report is released on the ruling of the Supreme Court.

On 8 February this year the Ombudsman ruled that he could not overturn an SA Water department decision to keep secret the contract for the operation and maintenance of the desalination plant, including any correspondence concerning the signing of that contract. The Ombudsman said in his determination of 8 February 2001, 'I consider there is a public interest in the release of the contract.' That is the first thing. Secondly, he stated:

...it is again with some disquiet that I consider the agency is able to withhold the contract from disclosure under clause 13(1)(a) of Schedule 1 of the FOI Act. The provisions of clause 54(2) of the contract—

which I interject to explain are the confidentiality clauses—

are extremely broad, and cover the entirety of the contract.

This, of course, produces a rather interesting scenario. We heard today the Minister for Health tell us, in respect of the up-and-coming Royal Adelaide Hospital contract, that his government wants to be open and transparent and make available as much as possible. Well, the Adelaide desalination contract is the last contract they signed. It is one of the biggest, financially, in the history of this state, which is to be kept wholly and completely secret forever.

We have other recent examples of the absurdity of excuses that have been used under the Freedom of Information Act. One was the planning department. Again, I had to almost laugh when I heard the new minister for planning announce all the advances of the 30-year plan. Let me say that when I, a very long time ago now, made an application for the submissions on the 30-year plan—this is what the people have had to say about it—the planning department have refused to release those documents or submissions on the 30-year plan because (wait for it!) it could lead to domestic violence. That is their latest excuse. Now, hopefully with the assistance of the Ombudsman, we will be receiving those documents.

Another absurd example just recently was the health department. When they were asked to produce the funding proposals submitted by the Nganampa Health Council, they declined on the grounds that, in doing so, it would breach Aboriginal tradition; that in some way this would be secret women's business that would be interfered with. We had to review that; that is, take an appeal into the department. Ultimately, that was overturned to enable the publication of those documents.

The government do not want to change the freedom of information law in this state. They will not even consent to us giving a three-hour free time for journalists on their applications for freedom of information. They refuse to consider any reform in this area. They have failed to deliver this. They keep saying to us that they are great advancers and pioneers in reform in this country; they are dead, dead last on this issue, and it is a shame on them when they pretend to be an open and accountable government.