HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-10-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Annual Report 2014-15

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:41): Supplementary to the Attorney: given that he has said these matters were under consideration after the report was tabled on freedom of information in June of last year and repeats that again today, why hasn't he acted at least to implement the reform to impose the offences when there has been ministerial interference with freedom of information officers, which was specifically recommended by the Ombudsman in his May report tabled in June of last year?

The SPEAKER: One trusts the interference wasn't recommended. Minister.

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, Minister for Child Protection Reform) (14:42): We are jumping into the TARDIS and going back 12 months with this question because this was the subject of many questions last year and in each one of those questions last year, as in the two questions we've just had today, there was a subtle but significant misrepresentation of the proposition contained in the report by the asker of the question (in all cases the same person). We pursued this matter back then, and I told the parliament about this.

If the honourable deputy leader wants to flick through Hansard at some point and examine some of the things I've had to say she would realise that we did examine this a while ago, we did pursue it with a view to ascertain whether or not there was a specific instance of interference (so-called) to which the author of that report was directing our attention and the answer was: there was not. There is in fact, as far as I am aware, no evidence that has been drawn to my attention of specific instances where ministerial staff have been responsible for manipulating or in any way unduly influencing the activities of an FOI officer, statutory functions, which are theirs and theirs alone under the act.

Now that I am in my stride in some respects on this topic, more of what I said to the parliament last year is coming back to me. I made this point last year as well: there are times when an FOI officer, quite properly and necessarily, will have to speak to ministerial staff and those times are the times where, for example, a document appears to have no context and it is necessary for the FOI officer to understand the context of the document in order for them to be able to discharge their statutory function, which is to ascertain whether that document comes within class A or class B, or whatever it is, under the FOI Act.

So, the notion—if this is the notion underpinning this—that there is no valid reason why communications should exist between ministerial staff and an FOI officer properly discharging their function is false. That is a false notion. There are perfectly legitimate reasons why that should and must occasionally occur and does occur, but that is light-years away from the proposition that there was evidence of a particular instance in which ministerial staff inappropriately have engaged with FOI officers discharging their functions for the purpose of in some way attempting to stop them from what they are obliged to do at law.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT