FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL 1999 Second Reading Speech

Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL 1999

(This an uncorrected proof of the daily report. It is made available under the condition that it is recognised as such.)

Bill presented and read a first time.

Ms MARTIN (Opposition Leader): Mr Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Honourable members will be aware that Labor has presented other freedom of information bills to this House before. Twice my predecessor, the member for Barkly, moved to have freedom of information legislation implemented. In 1996 an FOI bill was presented. The bill was not voted upon. Before another General Business Day occurred the former Chief Minister took the House off to an early election. This was a shame, because her bill gave rise to much interest in the community and in this House. She received a number of questions without notice on it from honourable members. Her bill was reintroduced and voted down by the Country Liberal Party – surprise, surprise! - last year.

I pick up where my predecessor left off and present my own bill today. The need for freedom of information legislation has not changed - if anything the case is getting stronger by the moment. The independent Ombudsman has reinforced the sound argument in favour of an FOI bill. Members of the community - and in recent times the business community - are screaming for it. Even members of the Country Liberal Party are starting to advocate an FOI act.

Labor believes:

· our aim ought to extend as far as possible the right of Territorians to have access to information held by the Northern Territory government;

· the public interest is served by promoting open discussion of public affairs and enhancing government’s accountability;

· the community should be kept informed of government’s operations, including in particular the rules and practices followed by government in its dealings with members of the community; and

· members of the community should have access to information held by government in relation to their personal affairs and should be given ways to ensure that information of that kind is accurate, complete, up-to-date and not misleading.

Labor recognises that there are competing interests in this kind of FOI framework. The disclosure of particular information could have a prejudicial effect on essential public interests or the private or business affairs of members of the community. The bill I am introducing today strikes a balance between those competing interests by giving members of the community a right of access to information held by government to the greatest extent possible, with limited exceptions for the purpose of preventing a prejudicial effect to the public interest of a kind I have referred to.

A competent and honest, open and accountable government has nothing to fear from this Freedom of Information Bill. In fact, a capable and honest, open and accountable government should welcome it, to demonstrate its competence and honesty. If a government has something to hide, of course, its reluctance to introduce this bill is understandable.

Freedom of information will encourage and enhance decisions and actions that will stand up to scrutiny. In a nutshell, freedom of information has real potential to encourage truly professional decision-making and actions on the part of those servants of the people, namely, politicians and public servants, as they carry out their duties for and on behalf of the people of the Territory.

Many people, and amongst these people I include small business people, feel powerless over government in the Territory. This bill will give these people an opportunity to find out information and possibly have some further influence on the governance of the Territory. If this bill is implemented, the government’s workload will only increase marginally. One possible area of concern to members is that freedom of information could be used to conduct fishing expeditions into government files by, maybe, mischievous people. The bill combats this possibility in a number of ways. Under section 27 of the bill, and the regulation I will tender at a later time, access to personal records will be free. However, under the bill freedom of information will not always be free. The charges imposed will minimise frivolous inquiries or fishing expeditions by the kind of mischievous persons I mentioned before.

Section 26 will also provide a mechanism for a government agency to refuse unreasonably broad requests. An important question relates to which government bodies the public can seek information from. The bill is to give a very broad coverage which includes the executive government and, most significantly, government departments and all organisations defined as an agency under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act. Under section 10, appropriate bodies such courts and the Administrator are excluded. Under section 34, some types of documents are also excluded. These include Cabinet documents, deliberative documents, certain law enforcement documents and some documents going to personal affairs.

This bill is modelled on the Queensland act, and adapted to cover Territory institutions and conditions. I will briefly make mention of some of the other provisions of the bill.

Section 16 obliges government agencies to tell the public how they operate and how the public can access records.

Section 23 sets out mechanisms for making an FOI application.

Division 4 spells out the processes of reviewing decisions not to disclose records. Under section 69 the onus lies with the agency to say why a document should not be provided.

Key issues that distinguish this bill from the Queensland original, are the questions of the cost of those schemes, and of appeal mechanisms. We believe that where access to documents is refused, it is appropriate to have appeal mechanisms which fit the size of the jurisdiction. We intend to give the Ombudsman the role to review decisions where information is denied to a member of the public. This is similar to the Ombudsman’s other functions and should be expected to result in lower administrative costs and faster response times.

There is no doubt Territorians deserve and want these protections against government. We should bear in mind what a large part government plays in the lives, both commercial and private, of people in the Territory.

The Commonwealth’s Freedom of Information Act came into operation in December 1982. Since then all other jurisdictions have introduced FOI legislation. The Country Liberal Party must accept that the time has come to give Territorians the rights nearly all other Australian citizens just simply take for granted.

In his annual report for 1996-97, the Territory Ombudsman makes a well-argued plea for freedom of information laws or their equivalent to be introduced in the Territory. The Ombudsman says: ‘There is an inconsistent approach to requests for information by Territorians. Territorians are knocked back on their requests for no good reason. Agencies don’t know what to do in relation to the release of information’.

The Ombudsman makes out a very good case for a freedom of information act to be put in place. The Chief Minister should have read the annual report. I’d like to hear where and why he thinks the Ombudsman and I and so many members of the Territory community have got it wrong. Little wonder the Chief Minister has opposed freedom of information even after only one week in the job.

When Labor has used the Commonwealth FOI legislation we have been able to uncover things that the CLP is able to hide in the Territory. One Commonwealth FOI request uncovered details on the $20 000 gift the former Chief Minister received from Telstra in travelling to the Atlanta Olympics. Another produced a copy of the federal police report investigation into the handing over of prohibited information to the Liberal Party’s data base company by staff under the former Chief Minister’s control. Because we don’t have FOI in the Territory we never got to the bottom of the former Chief Minister’s involvement in the $320 000 contract to Moira Dondas’ company in the North Australian Film fiasco. We don’t know the background to the Country Liberal Party’s bulldozing of the Yulara Town Council. We don’t have the full story on the Myilly Point development debacle and, Mr Speaker, the list is endless.

The public simply does not have access to information that it has a right to. The Chief Minister and the Country Liberals are the only party in Australia that do not support freedom of information. Mind you there was a push a little while ago in the Country Liberal Party to have freedom of information introduced. The Litchfield Branch of the party dared to say this is a good idea. They went public on it, and the CLP machine got to them and crunched them.

I hope the Country Liberal Party’s MPs have the intestinal fortitude and the courage to vote in favour of FOI when we debate this bill later in the year. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]