House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1) 53 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Freedom of Information Freedom of Information Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Deputy Leader of the Opposition Freedom of Information Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:47): A supplementary to the Minister for the Public Sector. Given the Ombudsman's finding that ministerial officers have asked for documents not to be released because the documents are 'embarrassing for the government', will the minister investigate ministerial interference in FOI applications? The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly Enfield Deputy Premier Attorney-General Minister for Justice Reform Minister for Planning Minister for Housing and Urban Development Minister for Industrial Relations Freedom of Information 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) (14:47): I think it is appropriate for me to take this question as I currently have the delegation in respect of the FOI legislation and therefore— Ms Chapman interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The deputy leader is warned. The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly The Hon. J.R. RAU: —it is appropriate for me. I have, in fact, had it for the best part of 18 months if I remember correctly. In any event, can I say a few things about the Ombudsman's report. First of all, obviously it is a reasonably bulky piece of work and, having had insufficient time to study it fully, I do not find myself in a position where I can say anything in particular about the recommendations, findings or other remarks made by the Ombudsman, although I make it clear it is my intention obviously to read the report and form views about it. I will make a few general points. First of all, my very preliminary view of the report suggests that there are no particular references made to particular instances, and I am aware of the fact that the Ombudsman has the remit to be able to, should he so wish, investigate any matters that he uncovered in the course of his inquiry which he deemed appropriate to do so, and to the best of my knowledge that has not occurred. The second thing I would say is that FOI applications are processed by accredited FOI officers who have a statutory independence according to the act and so the individual officer is the person in charge of the matter. I would say—and I believe all of us in government would say—we defend their right to be an independent officer and we condemn anybody who would attempt to interfere with that, because that is not appropriate, and we would encourage those officers, if they feel in that position, to stand up for themselves because that is their job. They are an independent officer. They have the power to make determinations free from interference and, of course, there is an appeal embedded in the system if somebody is disgruntled by whatever decision is made by the independent officer. That appeal goes either to the Ombudsman or it goes to the District Court, as members would be aware. I think it is important, though, to make this point. Over recent years the number of applications received has dramatically increased and this is in spite of the fact that the government has been proactively disclosing material, which I believe is acknowledged by the Ombudsman. We are putting as much stuff out as we can, and in the last parliament pursuant to that the government brought forward legislation to enable us to put even more material out, and that did not pass during the term of the last parliament over some objections from those opposite. Anyway, that is a separate matter. I do know this: whereas in the past members of parliament might habitually have made requests of the FOI officers for information about a particular matter, what they are now doing is something akin to what that large fishing trawler was attempting to do off Tasmania, which is to throw out a vast net and trawl a wall of death through departments. Can I give an example? Members interjecting: The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly The Hon. J.R. RAU: They are not Plantagenet fish; it is something else—pelagic, yes. It is the equivalent of a pelagic wall of death. I will give you an example. I have in front of me a letter from the Leader of the Opposition dated 12 May 2014 to the Freedom of Information Officer as follows: For the period 24 March 2014 to 1 April (inclusive), I request copies of all emails sent by the Minister's Chief of Staff, Ministerial Advisers, Media Advisers… The Hon. I.F. EVANS House of Assembly The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Point of order, sir. The Attorney-General has just quoted from an FOI put in by the Leader of the Opposition. I am just wondering how the minister would have actually got access to it. Surely that is privy to the FOI officer. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: We can't have FOIs about FOIs. The minister's time has expired, so we won't get to hear the rest of it, unless of course the deputy leader asks him a similar question.