Freedom of Information

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (14:29): My question is to the Minister for Police. Does the minister stand by his previous comments to the house that freedom of information processes waste time for members of parliament and deny information that should be freely and publicly available?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (14:29): I am very pleased that the member has asked this question.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER Order! Members on my left will be quiet while the Attorney answers the question. The Attorney has the call.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As the member would be very well aware—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —unlike perhaps some of the newer members who haven't had the time here yet to listen to the extensive concerns of the then opposition about the inadequacies of the freedom of information laws and the need for reform, supported by bill after bill after bill in an attempt to reform the law, coupled and supported really by Mr Lander, who did a comprehensive report, having audited the practices under the previous Labor government—

The SPEAKER: Point of order.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —the need to have reform—

The SPEAKER: Let's hear the point of order, Attorney, please.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Sir, this is clearly debate—clearly.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I do respectfully believe that the answer is apropos the question; however, I will listen carefully.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Thank you, sir. The member would recall the significance of this as an issue for the then opposition, supported by Mr Lander, who exposed allegations by public servants that there had been ministerial interference with the process of the production of documents or, in their case, concealment of those documents. I have no doubt that the Minister for Police, along with many other members who were in this parliament at the time, advocated repeatedly the need for the reforms and the inadequate application of the law by the former government. Indeed, members of the other house moved amendments; members of the other place moved bills, and I read of a bill that has been tabled by the Hon. Mark Parnell in another place, again in an attempt to reform this.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order: now the Deputy Premier is referring to debates in another house. It is completely out of order, sir.

The SPEAKER: Is the Attorney finished?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not quite.

The SPEAKER: Reply to the substance of the question, please.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I welcome the comments of the then member, now Minister for Police, in support of the voice of outrage at the former government's management and conduct outlined in those reports, and those voices of dissent and outrage will continue until the new government actually act on it. I am pleased to advise the house that that is exactly what we are doing. We are reviewing that report of Mr Lander again. We are identifying whether freedom of information law reform needs anything else with the efflux of time.

Of course, if any other members, either in this house or in another place, feel that there are aspects that need extra consideration, like the exposure—and members ought to be well aware of this because members may fall into this trap themselves.

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Leader!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The former government's decision to transfer freedom of information cases in dispute, or an objection to an Ombudsman's review, rendered them exposed to significant legal costs, from which they didn't have the protection under the old District Court appeal process. These are new matters which have clearly identified concerns that have been raised by members of parliament, including all those sitting in opposition now, who may want to avail themselves of that process.

But let me say this: in the meantime, this government will ensure in each of the departments that, in the event that an application for documents or the correction of records—which I remind members is also the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act—those matters will be pursued and they will be followed up and they will not—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —have ministerial interference.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: We are an open and transparent government already and we intend to continue to lead.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The minister's time has expired. Before I call the next member, I call to order the member for Lee, and I warn him. I call to order the member for Chaffey. The leader has had a fair crack in the first half an hour, and I warn him for the first time. Member for Davenport.