HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2022-11-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Freedom of Information (Ministerial Diaries) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 19 October 2022.)

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley) (11:09): I stand to support the Freedom of Information (Ministerial Diaries) Amendment Bill that was introduced by the Hon. Robert Simms MLC in the Legislative Council on 1 June this year. The bill's objectives are to amend the Freedom of Information Act 1991, specifically to legislate the proactive disclosure of ministerial diaries.

The Freedom of Information Act 1991 gives citizens the legal right to request access to documents held by state government agencies, ministers, local councils or state universities. The act also enables requests by citizens to amend documents which are deemed to be incomplete, incorrect, out of date or misleading; furthermore, the act enables applicants to seek a review of the decision made by an agency.

Each agency has FOI staff responsible for processing applications in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 1991 and has 30 days to deal with an application. If that application is not dealt with in 30 days, then there is an opportunity for an internal review, which means that the FOI officer in that ministerial office—or if it is a government department you are dealing with—must then intervene and have a look at it and, if it was perceived that documents were incomplete, to have a second look at it.

If it has not been delivered within that 30 days, it is deemed as being refused. Consequently, the internal review has 14 days in which to respond as to what has happened and whether that determination was within the Freedom of Information Act laws. Failing that, if there is still no outcome after that, there is an automatic ability to apply for an Ombudsman review.

The Ombudsman will then take over and ask for those particular documents and decide what the applicant is entitled to and what the act protects the office or the public sector or the minister's office from disclosing for various reasons that are explained in the act itself. Examples of documents held by government agencies include welfare, criminal records, minutes and agendas, policy and cabinet documents and briefings, and correspondence is also available.

Under the act, copies of ministerial diaries can be disclosed via FOI applications showing meetings, events and functions attended by the minister that relate to the minister's responsibilities. Exempt and restricted documents cover a broad scope, such as information that relates to electoral records, personal affairs and internal working documents that do not require disclosure. The level of information disclosed often varies, as different FOI officers use varying echelons of discretion.

The provision of such information is in the public interest but perhaps more so of political interest. Previously, ministers appointed by the Marshall government received FOI requests for disclosure of many diary records from both Labor and crossbench members of parliament. The bill that was introduced by Hon. Robert Simms MLC would require a minister, within seven days at the end of each calendar month, to make publicly available a copy of a minister's diary for the previous calendar month that sets out meetings, events and functions attended by the minister that relate to the minister's responsibilities by publishing it on a website determined by the minister responsible for the administration of this act.

The proposal enhances transparency, including potentially providing a clear overview to the parliament of policy and funding decisions of ministers derived from meetings with stakeholders, as well as more easily identifying any conflicts of interest. This is important, of course, because we are in the middle of questioning in this place about the outcomes of the Auditor-General's Report in what he describes as a process that was delivered outside of government. There is no public disclosure about that process at all. Of course, if that process were within government, documents would be available through the FOI system. Under this act, some of those documents would also be proactively disclosed.

I think we are at a turning point where we are littered with information. Information is available virtually on any situation except what happens under the Malinauskas government. We have seen nothing but barriers. Remember, the first act of this government was not to support the introduction of sessional orders that required questions in this place that were put on notice to be answered within 30 days—their very first act. That gives you some idea of the priority of the Malinauskas government when it comes to accountability and openness.

Despite their behaviour in opposition, demanding and receiving information that they were entitled to, we are seeing the ratchet ramped up now, where even documents requested by the Auditor-General for him to do his job are denied under the guise of cabinet solidarity and cabinet-in-confidence. Cabinet documents that were requested by the Auditor-General were always provided by the Marshall Liberal government because we are interested in transparency. We are interested in good government. Consequently, that convention of cabinet documents being requested by the Auditor-General was provided.

That has come to an end now under this government, and it is not for the benefit of the people of South Australia: it is for the benefit of the Labor Party and the unions that support them. They are the only people who benefit from this change of policy under this new government. This is why I support this bill. We should have nothing to fear about transparency, nothing to fear about being open with the public.

I spoke earlier about how accessible our democratic system is in South Australia to all South Australians. There are many examples in this house of where people have come from to join their colleagues as members of parliament, and I think that the same should apply. It does not matter what status you have as a member of society. If there is a particular issue you are interested in that is part of the government process, it should be available to the public.

The public are the employers, if you like, of members in this place. They are the ones who we rock up to every four years for a job interview, if you like, or a review of our work. If we are running for parliament for the first time, it is a bit like applying for a job, often a new job perhaps outside our field of expertise. There are many things that people will judge you on in order to vote for you, and openness and transparency is one of those issues that is very important to people in South Australia.

I know that because of the feedback I had from my electorate about changes to the ICAC Act. People were very concerned about those changes. They had a lot of difficulty understanding why it had broad support—unanimous support, basically—throughout the parliament. This type of transparency is important, and that is why I support the bill.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (11:19): I, too, would like to make a small contribution to what is I consider, as a loyal opposition, a very important part of the process to scrutinise the government's behaviour, their actions and the way they go about doing their work. It is important that this Freedom of Information Act be used as a tool of transparency and to give the public the legal right to request access to those documents.

Many of us here in this place who have lodged FOIs, or have had FOIs lodged on them, would understand the nature of what it means to have a high level of transparency. Particularly, we understand that it is to gain information and that transparency of not only government agencies and the ministers but of local councils and universities. It is about putting people's minds at ease.

We know that there is a level of mischief when people are not given that level of understanding or transparency when it comes to the process, and it has been very clear over a long period of time that we are now starting to see those cracks appear in this newish government's foundations with the lack of transparency. It also enables people to amend documents that are deemed to be incomplete, incorrect, out of date or misleading. Each agency has FOI staff responsible for processing applications in accordance with the act and then a 30-day period to act on that application.

Under the act, copies of ministerial diaries can be disclosed by the FOI application. Applications are applicable to meetings, events and functions attended by ministers relating to their responsibilities. However, a broad scope of documents can be exempt and restricted from application. We understand that some information, some documents, are cabinet-in-confidence or are withheld for commercial reasons.

Information relating to electoral records, personal affairs, internal working documents does not require disclosure, and that level of information disclosed often varies at different FOI offices. So there is a level of interpretation by an individual as to whether documents are relevant to be disclosed or not, but it is all about the variance and that interpretation that is being brought into question.

The amendment requires that ministers should take a much more proactive step to make their diaries available to the public. I have had to make my diaries public over a long period of time. That is a responsibility that comes with giving that level of transparency, and this proposal champions again that word 'transparency'. I want to talk about the current government's lack of transparency, but I will talk about that a little later.

These transparency measures are already in place in New South Wales, Queensland and the ACT and include the possibility of providing clearer overview to the public and the parliament of policy and those funding decisions. We know, currently, that there are meetings with stakeholders identifying conflicts of interest around who is meeting with government ministers and who is making the decisions in policy within government.

I want to touch on the current Labor government's record on secrecy. The government's secrecy has been publicly amplified as an enemy of the people. Since the beginning of this government's term, they have tried time and again to keep many areas of concern under wraps and in the dark.

Let's see what has happened seven months later. On day one, we learned that South Australia's new Premier is actually a dark age dictator. Those opposite voted to scrap vital transparency measures requiring them to provide timely answers to questions on notice, and we note that the former Labor government—

Mr BROWN: Sorry, just a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! There is a point of order.

Mr BROWN: The member is reflecting on a vote of the house.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner: He is out of his seat, sir.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! He is indeed out of his seat, but he may well repeat the point of order when he returns to his seat. Member for Chaffey.

Mr WHETSTONE: Thank you, sir. What I would like to say is the—

Mr BROWN: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I see the member for Frome. He calls attention to a point of order. I will hear him under 134.

Mr BROWN: Mr Speaker, the member is reflecting on a vote of the house.

The SPEAKER: Florey, I should say. That may be; I will listen carefully. Member for Chaffey, you well know the standing orders.

Mr WHETSTONE: Thank you, sir. Point of clarification, sir: the member for Frome is sitting right here.

The SPEAKER: Yes, I think I have already observed that.

Mr WHETSTONE: I think it is important. We are talking about transparency here. We are talking about diaries through FOI. I am trying to uncover some of this secrecy, yet the member for Florey, squeaker down the back, is getting up with a concern.

Mr BROWN: Mr Speaker, point of order.

Mr WHETSTONE: What I have to say is—

The SPEAKER: Order! There is a point of order, member for Chaffey.

Mr BROWN: I would ask the member to withdraw that invective directed at me.

An honourable member interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I understand that the standard is a subjective one, member for—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I must say, I did not hear clearly. However, it may be that the member for Chaffey, in order to resolve the issue expeditiously, were to withdraw and resume his remarks.

Mr WHETSTONE: Sir, there was nothing malicious in anything I have said to date. I am sure the member for Florey understands what the comment was and what the reference was to.

Mr Brown interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Florey, I will hear you as to what it is that you consider to be offensive. I observe, member for Chaffey, that the standard is a subjective one. In consequence of that, it is not necessarily the case that needs to be proved up objectively that something was offensive to an ordinary person in the position of the member for Florey. Member for Florey, what was it that you considered offensive?

Mr BROWN: Speaker, the minister—the former minister, I forgot that he had to resign in disgrace—referred to me as a squeaker. I ask him to withdraw that.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! That may be, member for Florey, but it does not give an opportunity for you also to reflect on another member in the house. Member for Chaffey, the member has taken offence. I invite you to withdraw.

Mr WHETSTONE: I withdraw, but I now ask the member for Florey to withdraw his comment.

The SPEAKER: Very well.

Mr BROWN: Sir, I withdraw.

The SPEAKER: Very well. There has been a withdrawal on both sides. Member for Chaffey.

Mr WHETSTONE: Thank you, sir. Why did Labor scrub all their election commitments from their website? Is that something that is there again as part of a dark age dictatorship? What I must say is that now what we are seeing is public servants being gagged, we are seeing government breathing down their necks, we are seeing that Green Industries SA was closeted in secrecy.

The Conservation Council was given hush money to keep answers around metropolitan coastline under wraps, and the member for Hartley yesterday informed us that the Auditor-General's ability to conduct his duty is being hindered by this government. There was $2 million given to RecFish SA. We have seen their behaviour under a former government and how they did not represent recreational fishers, yet they have now received funding. That is just outrageous and I think there is some transparency needed on that.

What we are seeing now is that they were leaking to the now government and that they were undermining the Minister's Recreational Fishing Advisory Council at every turn. There is more to come, I can assure you, and that will probably come through an FOI. I think it is important that we do have a level of transparency. I support the member for Heysen's great contribution to this bill.

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (11:29): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 25

Noes 17

Majority 8

AYES

Andrews, S.E. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K.
Boyer, B.I. Brown, M.E. Champion, N.D.
Clancy, N.P. Close, S.E. Cook, N.F.
Fulbrook, J.P. Hildyard, K.A. Hood, L.P.
Hughes, E.J. Hutchesson, C.L. Malinauskas, P.B.
Michaels, A. Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K. (teller)
Pearce, R.K. Piccolo, A. Picton, C.J.
Savvas, O.M. Stinson, J.M. Thompson, E.L.
Wortley, D.J.

NOES

Basham, D.K.B. Batty, J.A. Bell, T.S.
Brock, G.G. Cowdrey, M.J. Ellis, F.J.
Gardner, J.A.W. (teller) Hurn, A.M. McBride, P.N.
Pederick, A.S. Pisoni, D.G. Pratt, P.K.
Speirs, D.J. Tarzia, V.A. Teague, J.B.
Telfer, S.J. Whetstone, T.J.

PAIRS

Szakacs, J.K. Patterson, S.J.R. Koutsantonis, A.
Marshall, S.S.

Motion thus carried; debate adjourned.

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