Government Gutting Freedom of Information from EPA

Extract from Hansard

Legislative Council
10 November 1999

Mike Elliott
Leader Australian Democrats
Member of the Legislative Council

Parliament Index
1999 Spring Session Index
Browse by Subject
About the SA Parliament
Hansard on line

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I seek leave to give a brief explanation before asking the Attorney- General a question about the Freedom of Information Act.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I made an FOI request to the Environment Protection Agency on 13 August and sought both raw data and modelling results in relation to the Mount Barker foundry. I received a letter telling me that two documents had been identified-and, although I was surprised that there were only two, that is not really the thrust of this question. I was informed in the letter from the EPA that, following legal advice, access to these documents was denied, and four reasons were given. I paraphrase: the first reason was that there was a possibility of court action and, therefore, the documents were being withheld. I have no problem with that. The second reason was that clause 6(2) of schedule 1 to the act states:

A document is an exempt document if it contains allegations or suggestions of criminal or other improper conduct on the part of a person (living or dead) and the truth of those allegations or suggestions has not been established by a judicial process.

The report on emission testing could conceivably contain data suggesting impropriety by Mount Barker Products in the operation of their business that has not been established by the judicial process therefore would also be exempt in accordance with this clause.

The effect of that statement is that any FOI request which resulted in a finding that the rules had not been obeyed would suggest improper conduct, and immediately access would be denied. Two other reasons are given, but time will not allow any real exploration of them.

I want to focus on the interpretation of clause 6(2) and whether or not it is the government's intention that the Freedom of Information Act should be interpreted in this way. Does the minister recognise that, generally speaking, one of the important reasons why people make a freedom of information request is that they fear that something has gone wrong where it should not have gone wrong? If the minister does concede that that is the reason why many FOI requests are made, does he also concede that the interpretation given here means that, when something had been done incorrectly, access would be denied, thereby gutting the Freedom of Information Act and the very reason for its existence?

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (Minister for Information Services): As the minister to whom the Freedom of Information Act is committed I will provide the honourable member with an answer. His question raises a number of issues of alleged fact in relation to a particular instance, as well as supposed issues of government policy. These are quite complex issues and I will examine them and bring back a reply.