<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>House of Assembly</name>
  <date date="2014-06-04" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>53</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>1</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>House of Assembly</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="553" />
  <endPage num="640" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Freedom of Information</name>
      <text id="201406042e352cfcc143441b90000519">
        <heading>Freedom of Information</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="1804" kind="question">
        <name>Ms CHAPMAN</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Bragg</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Deputy Leader of the Opposition</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2014-06-04">
            <name>Freedom of Information</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2014-06-04T14:52:09" />
        <text id="201406042e352cfcc143441b90000520">
          <timeStamp time="2014-06-04T14:52:09" />
          <by role="member" id="1804">Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:52):</by>  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:</text>
        <text id="201406042e352cfcc143441b90000521">
          <inserted>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.</inserted>
        </text>
        <text continued="true" id="201406042e352cfcc143441b90000522">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?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1810" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. J.R. RAU</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Enfield</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Deputy Premier</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Attorney-General</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Justice Reform</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Planning</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Housing and Urban Development</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Industrial Relations</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2014-06-04">
            <name>Freedom of Information</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2014-06-04T14:52:54" />
        <text id="201406042e352cfcc143441b90000523">
          <timeStamp time="2014-06-04T14:52:54" />
          <by role="member" id="1810">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):</by>  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.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="4338" kind="interjection">
        <name>Mr Marshall</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="201406042e352cfcc143441b90000524">
          <by role="member" id="4338">Mr Marshall:</by>  Uninterrupted.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1810" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. J.R. RAU</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="201406042e352cfcc143441b90000525">
          <by role="member" id="1810">The Hon. J.R. RAU:</by>  Indeed—but they have a job.</text>
        <text id="201406042e352cfcc143441b90000526">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="1804">Ms Chapman interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="201406042e352cfcc143441b90000527">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  The deputy leader is warned for the second and final time.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1810" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. J.R. RAU</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <page num="589" />
        <text id="201406042e352cfcc143441b90000528">
          <by role="member" id="1810">The Hon. J.R. RAU:</by>  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.</text>
        <text id="201406042e352cfcc143441b90000529">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.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>