 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
Adjourned debate on second reading.
(Continued from 11 October. Page 133.)
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I support the second reading of this bill, which would not only provide proper and prudent public access to official information but would also protect individual privacy. It is a bill based on the unanimous recommendations emerging from the Legislative Review Committee's inquiry into the Freedom of Information Act 1991. As such, it is a bill that has tripartisan support from the Liberal, Labor and Democrat members of that committee who found that the present FOI Act was not serving the purposes for which it was enacted. It is a bill that addresses the concerns of the Ombudsman, who, in successive annual reports, proposed similar solutions to the problems with the existing FOI Act. Finally, it is a bill that is long overdue and it has been warmly received by the media and the community since my colleague the Hon. Ian Gilfillan introduced it to this chamber some four weeks ago.
Freedom of information is a central pillar to the integrity and accountability of government. It is imperative for good government in a mature democracy that parliament's elected officials and the public have proper access to information to an extent consistent with public interest and the protection of personal privacy. However, both the substance and interpretation of the current FOI Act have repeatedly undermined the integrity of the South Australian government. Firstly, the substance of the South Australian act is unique among FOI statutes in all Australian jurisdictions because of its total exemptions, which it grants to any information which touches or concerns business affairs. This compares poorly with New South Wales and Victorian acts which allow almost any information to be released if it is in the public interest.
This is a view confirmed by the Legislative Review Committee, which found that the current act is effectively a charter to withhold all but the most innocuous information. In short, South Australia's FOI Act is currently the most restrictive in Australia. Secondly, the interpretation of the existing act within a culture of antipathy and antagonism by the Public Service towards open government is crippling democracy in South Australia. I offer an example of my own experience with the Environment Protection Authority when seeking information of great public interest in relation to air quality testing at the Mount Barker Products Foundry.
On 13 August 1999, I sought both raw data and modelling results in relation to the Mount Barker foundry. In response, I received a letter telling me that only two documents had been identified. I must say it surprised me that they could only identify two documents. In any event, I was to be denied access to both of them. The two major reasons given for my denial of access were: first, they were to be withheld due to the possibility of court action-that was some action that the EPA might carry out in the future-and, secondly, they were to be withheld because they may have made allegations or suggestions of criminal or improper acts which had not been established by the judicial process. It is quite interesting really that I was seeking data and, according to the EPA's interpretation, data could be construed as allegations or suggestions of criminal or improper acts.
But then what is the point of having FOI? If you suspect that something is going wrong, you ask for information which will either confirm or deny it but, if there is some possibility that it might confirm that something is going wrong, you will be immediately denied access to it on the basis that it might be then seen as an allegation or suggestion of criminal or improper acts. It is quite a nonsense interpretation. More recently, the misinterpretation and manipulation of existing FOI laws have taken a different tack. After numerous requests for information being rejected through technicalities, or very little interpretations of requests, my office has taken to making broader requests in the hope that, by asking for all information, we may receive some that is relevant.
To each of the last four FOI requests I have made, in particular in relation to junior sport funding, mining in Yumbarra, mining in Coongie Lakes and the sale of public property assets, I received a similar response; that is, my requests were too big and time consuming. It seems no matter how one makes a request, interpretation and implementation of FOI laws have come to emphasise obstructionism, not openness.
In fact, I appeared as a witness before the committee and cited other examples.
The Hon. Ian Gilfillan interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Thank you for that. I probably make about three or four FOI requests a year and I cannot recall the last one that was complied with without a significant fight, if you like, to get information. Every time I have made an FOI request, some form of obstructionism has been thrown up. Then, when one resorts to going to the Ombudsman, you find that the Ombudsman's office is so under-resourced that the Ombudsman is not really in a position to carry out the role that is anticipated within the act so the one protection in the FOI act-an appeal to the Ombudsman-is effectively neutered because of the lack of resources. I wholeheartedly support my colleague's attempts to stem the growth of South Australia's reputation as the state of secrecy by introducing this bill, and I commend the bill to other members of the chamber.
The Hon. CAROLINE SCHAEFER secured the adjournment of the debate.
