HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2018-07-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Freedom of Information (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 9 May 2018.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (17:48): I rise on behalf of government members to speak briefly to the second reading of the bill. I understand there have been discussions between staff of the Attorney-General's office and the Hon. Mr Parnell in relation to the government's position on the bill.

Only very recently we have been advised of some correspondence from the Ombudsman in relation to freedom of information legislation, particularly this bill, and wider issues that the Ombudsman would like to see canvassed. Without going through all of the detail of the Ombudsman's letter, because of the lateness of the hour, a general summary of his position is that he remains supportive of, I think, all of the recommendations of the former Ombudsman, most of which I think are replicated in the Hon. Mr Parnell's legislation. However, he says that the world has moved on in relation to freedom of information legislation and he would like to see a whole range of other things incorporated into a comprehensive rewrite of the legislation.

I will not go through all those provisions, but he raises some very complicated and complex areas. For example, he says that the act does not address modern day issues such as whether images of persons captured by CCTV and other electronic means constitute those person's personal affairs, and whether agencies should be required to restore email accounts when searching for documents. I can assure honourable members that that was never the case under the former government in relation to email accounts having to be restored—indeed even being produced, I think, in some cases. So there are many complicated issues that the new Ombudsman has raised.

The government's position is that we will not be supporting this legislation. The Attorney-General has already instituted a review of the whole of the freedom of information legislation and commenced consultation with agencies and other stakeholders. On behalf of the Attorney-General I can advise that she is quite happy to consult with the Hon. Mr Parnell—and I suspect not just the Hon. Mr Parnell but any other member who may have an ongoing and abiding interest in freedom of information legislation. It would not be exclusive to the Hon. Mr Parnell but would be inclusive of anyone who may be interested in it.

As I said, I do not intend to delay the proceedings other than to outline that I think the government's position is in accord with the new Ombudsman's position; that is, 'If you are going to do this let's have a look at a whole range of things'. He also has a whole range of other suggestions that he thinks we should be contemplating. As someone who often used the freedom of information legislation and who is often criticised by the former Labor government for being so unreasonable in my usage of freedom of information requests, in terms of this review the Ombudsman is raising a number of very difficult issues that will need to be addressed.

One of the other issues—this is a personal view, not a government view or government party room view at this stage—is that there needs to be some defining of the freedom of information request process. In my experience when seeking freedom of information it was generally a particular issue that you were pursuing. It might have been ministers' travel or a particular document or a particular privatisation or particular program cut but, whatever it was, it was at least identified. What I have seen in my short period in government for the second time around is a very lazy process entered into by some that essentially says, 'We would like a copy of every document you have ever received on any issue for the last month.' Then the next month, 'We now want a copy of every document you have ever received on every issue from anybody in the last month.'

Clearly the response, in nice terms, is going to be, 'Give us a break.' That is an unreasonable diversion of resources, and I think many of us have had previous quotes that it was going to cost $2,413,000 to conduct this FOI search, or something. I think that in the comprehensive review it is an issue that members, as a collective, need to address; that is, in my view there needs to be some defined purpose.

It does not have to be restrictive, but at least something that indicates what it is you are actually looking for, short of it actually saying, 'We now want a copy of every document you have got,' which means that every office has to go through every document and either refuse, redact, consult—or whatever it is—on every document that has ever been received by a minister on any issue. In my view that is, first, an unreasonable diversion of public sector resources; secondly, it is for no good purpose; and thirdly, it is enormously costly in terms of the proposition.

I think it defeats the spirit of freedom of information legislation. Freedom of information is there. If there is a particular issue, project or whatever it is that you are pursuing, you should be able to pursue that as assiduously as possible and be assisted in the process to a certain extent by government departments and agencies within the restrictions the FOI legislation outlines.

When we look at this, there will be one side of the argument in relation to continuing to open up, as I said, the issues of CCTV camera coverage, all of those sorts of things. It could be emails, text messages and a variety of other issues like that, then there will be the issue ultimately of perhaps a better delineation or definition of what it is a person is actually pursuing to assist the agencies and departments that have to manage the process.

With that, I indicate the government's opposition to this particular bill but certainly not its opposition to reform of FOI legislation. I put on the record that the Attorney-General has already commenced a review of the FOI legislation, has commenced consultation and extends the open hand of consultation, not only to the Hon. Mr Parnell who is the mover of this bill, but indeed to other members who might have strong views to put to the Attorney-General in relation to reform of freedom of information legislation.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins.

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