Freedom of Information (Ministerial Diaries) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (10:50): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I indicate that it is a bill received from the Legislative Council, a bill introduced in the other place by the Hon. Robert Simms MLC. I indicate, as my colleague in the other place the Hon. Michelle Lensink MLC did back in July, that the opposition will support the bill and that is in particular circumstances in which this new government has got off to the worst possible start that one might imagine.

Members in this place will find it hard to forget the front page of The Advertiser on about 4 May and the new Premier being labelled as a 'dark-age dictator' for his want of the removal of transparency measures and the introduction of elements of a secret state as early as the first day of sitting in May. Members will recall on that occasion that the opportunity to continue what had been meritorious sessional order arrangements for the timely answering of questions on notice was and remains inexplicably not continued by this new government in coming to power.

South Australians have become now well acquainted with the approach that the Malinauskas Labor government takes when it comes to transparency. It is against this background that measures of this kind are an opportunity for the Malinauskas Labor government to begin to see the error of its ways and to make amends in supporting legislation of this kind at this time so as to rebut what has become very clearly characterising this government's approach towards transparency.

The bill will introduce a proactive regime of disclosure for what is already routinely available in response to an FOI request. What it will do that is new is it will require the proactive disclosure of ministerial diaries within seven days following the end of each month and on a routine basis. It is not new, as the Attorney-General in the other place conceded. This is a measure that in one form or another is in place in other jurisdictions in the country, notably the ACT and Queensland, and we know that the provision of ministerial diaries is something that has been uncontroversially done in response to FOI applications in this state over a long period of time. The ACT is otherwise the most akin to this particular form of disclosure insofar as the proactive arrangements are concerned.

Clearly, these are measures that enhance the capacity of the opposition to keep the government to account and, in turn, as I said in my opening remarks in support of the bill, they are an opportunity for South Australians to see that the government is interested in making sure that South Australians in a reasonable and timely way can see what their executive is up to and, in turn, for their representatives in this place, in this parliament—and members now on government benches have been vocal in their words in relation to the sanctity and supremacy of parliament in times gone by—what we see now will be an opportunity for them to demonstrate by deeds that parliament is in fact serious about keeping oversight of the executive and doing so in a timely way.

We know that the subject matter of this disclosure is already something that is routinely provided in response to request and has been done already under this new government, so it will not come as any surprise in that respect. Retorts in relation to the sensitivity of subject matter, the nature of meetings and the particular engagements that may be sensitive from time to time in a ministerial diary are not new and do not present any novel barrier to the proactive provision of that material. That is about the extent of the government's expressed reluctance to support this process as elucidated by the Attorney in the other place.

The other aspect that is alluded to in the government's indication in the other place about its attitude to the bill is the perceived work or the nature of the task that is involved in providing the proactive disclosure. Of course, there is an administrative task and, from an ad hoc one to a comprehensive one, we will see the disclosure of those diaries in a routine way.

I would have expected that when anything is adopted as a routine, it carries a burden and also, by systematising the approach, the opportunity to provide efficiencies, normality and, I am confident, a capacity for that disclosure to be done without creating an insurmountable burden on the executive. So far so good in those other jurisdictions; indeed, no difficulty in particular has been identified as having emerged. Given that this is one of those areas in which we have the benefit of practice elsewhere, that is worthwhile noting.

The second aspect of the bill—and one might foreshadow or see implied in the government's response in the other place some concern about the administrative burden from a resourcing and review point of view—is the work of the Ombudsman and I would expect, in particularly rare cases, the SACAT in reviewing and determining disputes in relation to the disclosure.

As my friend in the other place the Hon. Michelle Lensink MLC observed, it is appropriate that there be consideration of appropriate resources and routines to the Ombudsman and to the SACAT, to the extent that that process of consideration and determination of differences of opinion about what should be disclosed and in what form ought to be provided. So that is noted and, again, there is nothing particularly new there. For those who are concerned with it, that is provided for at what will be sections 8B and 8C respectively of new part 1A.

I just say again: they are very faint sources of resistance indeed, if we are to take the Attorney as the source of a comprehensive view from the government's side about this bill. They are very faint and very limited sources of reluctance to what might otherwise—and perhaps with the benefit of these words, and others perhaps more eloquently expressed—be a source of inspiration for the government in this place to see in this an opportunity to see the error of their ways in the early days, to see that the flourish of enthusiasm in the early days of government about charting a course on one's own terms can be measured and tempered and a reasonableness can return; in turn, the confidence of the South Australian community might be attracted by a change of heart.

I am not predicting it, because there has been a pretty clear indication from the Attorney in the other place, but there it is. It is an opportunity for the government to make amends and to say, 'Do you know what? It is a good idea. It is actually a good way forward. We do live in a modern age in which the provision of information in a timely way can be done much more conveniently than might have been the case in days gone by. Do you know what? We can display our credentials, and what they're saying about us being a bunch of folks who are committed to secrecy and the avoidance of transparency—well, that's all wrong. No, we want to chart a new course and this is a way for us to do it.'

I look forward to those reflections on the government's side. It is one of those opportunities that arises, given the bicameral nature of our parliament. We have had an expression in the other place, the bill has nonetheless prevailed and here we are in the place where the important work of holding the executive to account in large part takes place. It is the house of government. It is not beyond the wit of government members—it should not be beyond the wit of government members—to take this opportunity to reflect and to think, 'Do you know what? They're all right and we need to really see the error of our ways and get behind this bill and the process of transparency it would enshrine in the relatively modest and straightforward way that it does.'

With those words, it is really over to the government. We may see that a further spotlight is shone in the coming days, weeks and months by means of the subject matter of this bill. If that happens, well that is a good thing, and if the government comes around to supporting this bill and the steps it will take, well, that is a good thing too. There we are: we will have a demonstrated that we can act proactively towards transparency. With those words, I commend this bill to the house and look forward to those further contributions to the debate, particularly from the government side.

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (11:04): I move:

That debate be adjourned.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 25

Noes 15

Majority 10

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Motion thus carried; debate adjourned.

The SPEAKER: Member for Heysen, not to charge you but out of common interest and out of respect to your knowledge as former Speaker as well, I have taken a moment to consult standing order 192 in relation to postponement as against adjournment and 238 in relation to second readings. I do not profess to have had that knowledge myself. I have only had the benefit of the Clerk’s advice.