HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-06-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (15:28): I want to speak again today about the ongoing problems with what are supposed to be freedom of information processes within government. I refer specifically to an application lodged with the Department of Treasury and Finance. Back in May 2011—specifically, on 10 May 2011—I sought copies of all documents including emails and notes of telephone conversations since 1 January 2009 relating to any ICT project connected in any way to the RISTEC project.

Since May 2011, this particular application has been an ongoing saga. Soon after the receipt of the application, we were told by the Treasury freedom of information officer that the scope of our application was too wide and we were asked whether we could limit it in some way to make the task more manageable. So on 17 May we advised that we were prepared to remove the request for emails and notes of telephone conversations, as we were advised that that would have increased the scope significantly over and above the normal, or more traditional, definition of documents.

Soon after that on 2 June 2011, we were advised that 13,000 pages had been found, with more to come, and that the scope of the application was still too wide. On the basis of that we then further changed the scope of the application from 1 January 2009 to 1 January 2010. In essence, we limited it to a time period from 1 January 2010 through to the date of our application in May 2011.

Soon after that, again, in June last year, we were advised by the freedom of information officer that 27,000 documents had now been identified and that the scope of the application was too wide, and were again asked to further amend it. The next day we were advised that it was not 27,000 documents but, in fact, 27,000 pages; nevertheless, still a very significant scope of documents. We were again told that that the scope of the application was too wide, and were asked if we would further amend it.

We then further amended it by advising freedom of information to restrict the application to copies of documents relating to the total cost of any ICT project that was connected in any way to the RISTEC project. So we had restricted the complete range of documents back to any document which referred to the total cost of any ICT project that was connected in any way to the RISTEC project. As I said, we were told on 24 June that there were 27,000 pages of documents within the scope; we then further restricted it to the total cost of any ICT project.

This month, on 8 June 2012—13 months after the application—we received the following response from Treasury to our application. It said that as it had not determined the application within 30 days, the agency was taken to have determined the application by refusing access. However, it then went on to say that a search of the department's databases and information stores had not identified any documents that were within the scope of our request.

So we have the extraordinary situation of having been told, 12 or 13 months ago, that there were 13,000 pages, then 27,000 pages of documentation and that the application was still far too wide and that there were 27,000 pages within the scope of our request, yet we are now told, 13 months later, that there is not one page, out of all the 27,000 pages, that is within the scope of the application of this particular freedom of information request.

That is clearly, to any reasonable person, an extraordinary response from this government and its processes to a freedom promotion request: 13 months to come back and say that there is not one page, not one document, within the scope, when 12 months ago we were being advised there were 27,000 pages of documents within the scope of the freedom of information request. It is no wonder that people believe that this government, under Mr Weatherill and the ministers, is the most secretive government in this state's history when this sort of response is being provided by this government's freedom of information processes,.

Time expired.

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