Democrats Support Protection of Police Archives

	Extract from Hansard Legislative Council 4 August 1999

Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council		Parliament Index 1999 Budget Session Index Browse by Subject About the SA Parliament Hansard on line

That the regulations under the State Records Act 1997 concerning police exclusion, made on 25 March 1999 and laid on the table of this Council on 25 May 1999, be disallowed.

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I also rise to support the motion and to commend my colleagues on the committee who have spoken so far—the Hon. Angus Redford and the Hon. Ron Roberts. I think that they have broadly covered the full aspect of the areas which led to the committee coming to a rather unusual decision. I recognise that the normal role of the Legislative Review Committee is to look more pedantically at the political correctness of the procedure rather than at the pros and cons of the issue before it. We are not constituted to make subjective judgments.

I think that it is not stretching that role of the committee too far to recognise that if there are to be powers for the ad hoc selection for destruction of certain categories of records, other than a consistent and long-term visionary approach to what should be appropriate to be retained as records, that then becomes very dangerous because it means that the people who are making that decision to some extent will be making it from a degree of comfort, if not necessarily for themselves but for others whom they believe will be discomforted if that information is made public.

We have the precedent of discrete disclosure of information in the long delay periods that surround Cabinet documents. It is not unusual for what would have appeared at the time to be scandalous revelations to be revealed in due course. One finds that it does not turn the country upside down or make the families of the individuals dramatically upset. Recognising the sensitivity, yes: recognising that records can quite properly be kept under certain circumstances away from access—and that is the point that the Hon. Angus Redford emphasised—the requirements are all available so as to minimise to the point of almost totally excluding the risks that have been alluded to by the Hon. Trevor Griffin in his contribution of some concern.

It is soundly based for this Council to pass the motion of disallowance, first, that the procedure has certainly not complied with what our committee normally would accept as proper procedure and the following of proper head powers through the legislation. That does not mean that we are denying that there have been these sorts of restraints on this material in the past. But what has happened in the past is not specifically relevant to the decision that this committee should make and this Council should now make today in relation to today's circumstances and the future.

First, the motion should be supported on the basis that, in our view, due process has been stretched to its limits and, in my view, not properly followed in a matter of this significance. Secondly, it is dangerously misplaced if the motive for the direction, as has been publicly expressed, is to protect people from what may be erroneous or embarrassing information. If that were the case, that argument could be transferred to a host of material, and it would seriously diminish the background, research and historical information which is essential for proper historical analysis of previous times in the years ahead. If we condone the destruction of material now because it could possibly be embarrassing to current people or families, we are depriving in quite an irresponsible way the quarry of material that succeeding generations will prize in researching and assessing. We will be punishing. Basically, that is one of the main reasons for the State Records Act. Therefore, the Council should support the motion of the committee.