Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Question Time Freedom of Information FREEDOM OF INFORMATION The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY Legislative Council Leader of the Opposition FREEDOM OF INFORMATION The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:24): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Leader of the Government a question (which he may choose to refer) about freedom of information. Leave granted. The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY Legislative Council The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: At the time of preparing this question, an article entitled 'Three streets earn $3 million in speeding fines' appeared on Adelaidenow. The article listed South Terrace as the highest speeding revenue earner for the 2008 calendar year, at— Members interjecting: The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY Legislative Council The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Can I have the clock reset? The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: No, you cannot. An honourable member interjecting: The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY Legislative Council The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Thank you for your protection, Mr President. Indeed, the article had been based on a media release issued by the Minister for Police today. The release, entitled 'State's top twenty speeding hotspots revealed', concludes with a table showing the street and suburb location of speed cameras alongside the amount earned in 2008. The table was familiar to me because, late last week, I had received it in response to a freedom of information request that I had lodged in January last year. That request was for the top 20 positions of mobile speed detection cameras, listed in order of the most revenue generated, including the amount of revenue generated from each of those positions for a set period, and I am happy to table the response I received last week, which is an exact copy of what was issued in the press release issued by the minister today. I am aware that my colleague the Hon. Robert Brokenshire raised this issue recently. Section 32 of the Freedom of Information Act states that an application must be dealt with on behalf of an agency by an accredited FOI officer of that agency. In accordance with that section, I presumed that my application directed to SAPOL would be dealt with exclusively by SAPOL, with no consultation with the Minister for Police. In fact, in March this year, the Leader of the Government said in response to a question asked by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire that, if some information is held within the minister's office, the minister would know that the request existed. I am confident, with regard to this particular request, that the information did not reside within the minister's office. I further note that, around the same day I received the information relating to this request, I received further information from SAPOL listing our state's top 25 black spots from January 2006 to December 2008. This information indicated that North Terrace (the road out the front of Parliament House) is the state's number one black spot. My questions are: 1.	Why did the police minister have access to the information gathered for a freedom of information request (which is evident in today's media release) when the request was not directed to his office? 2.	Given the minister's obvious access to this FOI information, why did he not state in today's press release that North Terrace is the most dangerous street in Adelaide? The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council Minister for Mineral Resources Development Minister for Urban Development and Planning Minister for Small Business The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:28): Again, it seems to be rather extraordinary that what the Leader of the Opposition is effectively putting up is that ministers should not have access to information within their departments, and I find that extraordinary. As the honourable member said, the Hon. Mr Brokenshire asked a question on this some time ago, and I made the following point then: is the purpose of freedom of information to give some magical, mythical cover to the information provided so that it will provide greater media interest than the information would otherwise give? Why is it that the honourable member has some concern that ministers should be releasing information? It is appropriate that ministers should have access to all information within government. What is the purpose of having ministers in government? Is the honourable member seriously suggesting that there should be some information in government that is available only to opposition members or people who seek it? The fact is that government should have access to information, and I would expect that any agency that is releasing information would inform the minister's office of what is happening. Surely, if information is being released, the minister's office should be aware of it. They should not be able to interfere in what is provided, but surely they are entitled to know what information is being publicly released, and I would expect that any agency would do so. I really do not think much more needs to be said than that.