HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-03-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (15:41): I rise to speak about freedom of information and an important decision that has recently been taken by the Ombudsman. Members will be aware of Mr John Bistrovic, a loyal foot soldier of the Labor right in South Australia. He has served in a number of ministerial offices: with then minister Wright and then deputy premier Foley, and he left in early 2011 for a very brief career with minister Ellis in the federal arena. More recently, as you would well know, Mr President, the right has insisted on placing within the left-wing Premier's office certain key staff of the right, just keep an eye on what is going on in that office. Mr Bistrovic has been given that task, as a representative of the right, to keep an eye on what the lefties are doing in the left-wing Premier's office.

For some time I have been pursuing not just Mr Bistrovic, I might say, but details of taxpayer funds paid out in relation to ministerial contracts. In November last year, I made an application which, as it turned out, related to Mr Bistrovic and what taxpayers paid for any payout of leave and other entitlements. Unsurprisingly, as is the way with the Labor right in South Australia, they fought the release of this information all the way through. It was refused on first application, and on internal appeal it was further refused. The Ombudsman made some initial discussions, and Mr Bistrovic trenchantly refused any release of information which would indicate any details of what taxpayers have paid out in relation to his contract entitlements.

Only very recently, the Ombudsman has made an important ruling. He said that he does accept that Mr Bistrovic's remuneration details, including payments made in relation to the cashing out of his leave entitlements, constitute information concerning his personal affairs within the definition of the act. He went on:

In assessing whether disclosure of this information would be unreasonable, Ms Chapman's—

who is the FOI officer—

argument that 'it is unreasonable disclosure of [Mr Bistrovic's] personal affairs to release the documents to a third party' is insufficient.

The remuneration details in the documents concern payments made to Mr Bistrovic as a public officer, from the public purse. While Mr Bistrovic objects to disclosure of information recorded on these payments, there is a public interest in favour of disclosure which centres on the need for accountability of expenditure of public monies. This outweighs Mr Bistrovic's objections, and any privacy (if any) which may attach to the details. In my view it would not be unreasonable to disclose the information.

I note that there are many cases in which the remuneration of public officers has been disclosed under freedom of information legislation.

I say, 'Hear, hear!' to that. This is taxpayers' money, and the Ombudsman is saying that, just because you believe that the amount of money that is paid to you, or that is paid out to you under your contractual entitlements—in this case, the cashing out of the rec leave that Mr Bistrovic had not taken was $33,000.

Obviously, there were termination payments and other payments which he would have been entitled to as well but, in relation to this particular aspect, he had not taken annual leave or recreation leave; he had accumulated it. Mr Bistrovic obviously went through to the very highest level, which was chief of staff, and he got paid out his rec leave at the very highest level, which was the $130,000 a year that he was being paid as chief of staff in minister Foley's office.

It is an important decision, because this is public money—taxpayers' money—and just because you say to the FOI officer, 'This is intrusive of my personal affairs and I don't want it released', and all the FOI officers dutifully go off and refuse to release the information—the Ombudsman is saying, 'You are a public officer. You are paid by the public and the taxpayers, and what you are paid is entitled to be known by the parliament, the public, media, community, and the taxpayers at large.'

So often we have had the government claiming confidentiality in relation to not just ministerial advisers and their payouts but also public servants, senior and otherwise. On this decision, this information should now be released, and we look forward to a new openness, transparency and accountability, thanks to the Ombudsman.

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