Freedom of Information

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:52): Yes, I have a supplementary: given the minister's answer about the report and not being examples, can the minister then explain why on page 86 at paragraph 329 the Ombudsman reports:

Another witness indicated that they had received phone calls from a Minister's office asking that certain documents not be released—not because an exemption applied, but because the documents were considered to be embarrassing to the government.

It makes the finding in relation to ministerial interference on page 88 of the report and, therefore, I ask the Attorney: is he going to investigate these allegations?

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (14:52): Can I make this point? First of all, I am looking at the passage to which the deputy leader has referred me at paragraph 329. Another unnamed witness indicated that they had received phone calls from an unnamed office asking that unnamed documents not be released and not because an exemption applied but because the unnamed documents were considered to be embarrassing by the unknown person to the government. I will make two points about this. Point number one is the FOI officers have an independent statutory role. It is their job to perform that role and they should perform that role.

Mr Marshall: Uninterrupted.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Indeed—but they have a job.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The deputy leader is warned for the second and final time.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: They have a job to do. The second point I would make is that the Ombudsman in the conduct of this matter was in a position to explore the particulars of this matter—and I make the point that I have not read this whole thing in detail, but I look at 329. That does not give me much to go on. So I make the point that the Ombudsman is entitled to investigate misbehaviour, if I put it that way, on the part of public servants, inappropriate conduct on the part of people. He has extensive powers to do that. Whether he or his office, because I know he has now moved on, has chosen to take up any of these matters, I do not know.

I do not understand how it could be possible for me, based on those particulars, which are no particulars at all, to investigate anything. I make the point again: the government does not support people requesting FOI officers to do anything other than their statutory duty, and the officers should continue to do their statutory duty.