House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1) 54 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Freedom of Information (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill Freedom of Information (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill Freedom of Information (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 24 October 2018.) Mr PICTON House of Assembly Kaurna Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (10:36): I appreciate the opportunity to provide some contribution to private members' business before the government seeks to adjourn everything off and avoid any actual votes happening in this place on any legislation. I rise to indicate the opposition's support for the bill which was introduced in this place by the member for Florey and in the other place by the Hon. Mark Parnell MLC, and which the member for Florey has carriage of in this place. I believe that this is the third time that the Hon. Mark Parnell has sought to introduce similar legislation in relation to updating freedom of Information laws in South Australia. It will be very interesting to see what the approach is by the government to this legislation because, time and time again, when they were in opposition there was no more enthusiastic supporter of this legislation than the now Liberal government. Perhaps you, Mr Speaker, were a strong supporter of this legislation in the previous parliament. Certainly if not you then the current Attorney-General was a very strong supporter of this legislation—a very strong supporter indeed—and, in fact, called it urgent and something that this parliament needed to deal with very quickly. We have not seen that same level of support in the other place, and I am hoping that in this chamber the government will see the merit of supporting this legislation. It is worth putting on the record that this is the second iteration of the bill, introduced in 2016 and passed in the Legislative Council with the support of the Liberal Party. The Liberals, including the now Attorney-General, Vickie Chapman, also voted in support of the bill in the House of Assembly; however, it did not pass at that time. Obviously, this is something that the opposition has reviewed in light of the election and is now happy to support this legislation. I hope that the government will as well. I understand that the government opposes the bill on the grounds that the Ombudsman believes that a full rewrite of the current legislation is required and that the Attorney-General had intended to commence a review of the current freedom of information regime. I understand that the Hon. Mark Parnell MLC has received support from the now Ombudsman to proceed with clause 5, the insertion of section 8A, public interest factors, and clause 14, insertion of section 49A, improper direction or influence. For people who are not aware, essentially these are two important recommendations that the Ombudsman has consistently made. One is to clarify what the public interest test should mean. There is obviously a very broad scope as to what public interest tests would be. This seeks to clarify and provide guidance for freedom of information officers as to what factors they should be weighing up when deciding what the public interest should be. The second element is to prevent improper direction or influence being placed upon freedom of information officers. I think, Mr Speaker, that you yourself were a very strong supporter of making sure it was updated in the law. The Hon. A. Piccolo House of Assembly The Hon. A. Piccolo: He raised it a number of times. Mr PICTON House of Assembly Mr PICTON: It was raised a number of times. I think perhaps he even had a private member's bill. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: I did. Mr PICTON House of Assembly Mr PICTON: He did, that is right. In fact, he had a private member's bill to that effect. Clearly, I am hoping that this will receive your support, Mr Speaker, consistent with your previous introduction of legislation into this parliament. To paraphrase what you said to parliament at the time, freedom of information officers should be able to make their decisions without any undue influence or directions from ministers, ministerial advisers or people who are outside the FOI process. They are certainly wise words that we all reflect on and hopefully the government will support now that they are in the majority in this house and have the ability to pass this legislation. This legislation has now been passed by the Legislative Council. It can be enacted right now if the government supports it and if the government allow a vote on it and support that vote, unlike what they seem to be doing with every other piece of private members' business, which is, in my view, to undemocratically prevent any debate or votes on those bills from happening in this parliament. I think the government should allow this to happen. Clearly, the Ombudsman is very supportive of this. Clearly, this is not something that needs to be held up pending other future reviews of the Freedom of Information Act. I believe that the Ombudsman has said that these sections would be useful to have in the current act pending the outcome of the review that the Attorney-General has underway. I understand the Ombudsman has also identified a need to extend the definition of determination. The Hon. Mark Parnell has now lodged amendments giving effect to those recommendations from the Ombudsman, and I believe that the bill we have here in the parliament reflects those amendments having taken place. I believe that a determination currently, if no documents are found to exist in a freedom of information finding, cannot be seen to be made a determination that the Ombudsman has the ability to review. There is a sort of backhanded way in which the Ombudsman can look at it by nature of an action by an agency, but it would make sense that it be part of this act that it be clear that it is a determination where an agency has found there are no documents and that is something that the Ombudsman could review. I trust the government, in particular Vickie Chapman, given her previous very strong support— The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Member for Bragg. Mr PICTON House of Assembly Mr PICTON: —sorry, the member for Bragg, the Attorney-General—will support what is being proposed here because she has previously supported this so many times in this parliament. I think it would be seen by the public as gross hypocrisy for her now not to support this legislation that she previously supported. Once again, I indicate the opposition's support for the bill. I hope we get a vote on this today. I hope the government does not delay. I hope we do not see their continual practice in this place of delaying and putting off votes on private members' legislation in what I think is the most undemocratic way and that we get a vote on this legislation so it can be law. Dr HARVEY House of Assembly Dr HARVEY: I move: That the debate be adjourned. The house divided on the motion: Ayes	23 Noes	20 Majority	3 AYES Basham, D.K.B. Chapman, V.A. Cowdrey, M.J. Cregan, D. Duluk, S. Ellis, F.J. Gardner, J.A.W. Harvey, R.M. (teller) Knoll, S.K. Luethen, P. Marshall, S.S. McBride, N. Murray, S. Patterson, S.J.R. Pisoni, D.G. Power, C. Sanderson, R. Speirs, D.J. Teague, J.B. Treloar, P.A. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Whetstone, T.J. Wingard, C.L. NOES Bedford, F.E. (teller) Bell, T.S. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K. Boyer, B.I. Brock, G.G. Brown, M.E. Close, S.E. Gee, J.P. Hildyard, K.A. Koutsantonis, A. Malinauskas, P. Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, A. Picton, C.J. Rau, J.R. Stinson, J.M. Weatherill, J.W. Wortley, D. PAIRS Pederick, A.S. Hughes, E.J. Motion thus carried; debate adjourned.