It is my belief that in questions involving access to government information by citizens of a democracy like Australia every obstacle and barrier needs to be removed. The administration of such legislation by necessity lends itself too easily to be, in the words of Sir Harry Gibbs, "administered in a tardy and grudging way".1My general thoughts and attitude to the Government's Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 1994 are well known. In this submission I provide a detailed critique of those proposed changes. However the Government's arguments, evidence and case for this legislation has been scarce or constructed on mere assertions. The Government has prior to this inquiry made no determined effort to present a coherent and public case for its unprecedented efforts to amend the FoI Act.The history of FoI administration in this country, New Zealand, Canada and the United States sends a simple message - Secrecy and Closed Government lumber on and are more than a match for the paper swords of those wanting access.
Given this mindset I believe that every measure that promotes openness and balances the game in favour of the applicant is too little and will in the long run fail to be the magic key which opens the vaults of government secrecy. Nevertheless in the interests of a full spirited democracy we need to keep playing the game no matter that it appears to be another version of Zeno's challenge. The history of FoI in Australia illustrates how susceptible the legislation is to piecemeal and inconsistent amendment or the occasional threat from savage overhaul akin to the recent Tasmanian experience.
Of particular concern has been the deep secrecy associated with the lead up to the Government's amendments, both in 1992 and in 1994, to the Freedom of Information Act 1991. The Government needs to justify the complete absence of public consultation in this amendment process. The unheralded introduction into the House of Assembly took place a full twelve months after the initial decision by Cabinet to amend the Act (see Attachment 1)
The October 1993 Cabinet decision to launch upon a full scale revision of the Freedom of Information Act 1991 began only 242 days after an already amended Act had come into operation. The question I would ask this Select Committee to seek an answer to is whether the Government's administration of this Act, in light of the process that began in October 1993, has been a breach of the Objects in Section 3 of the Freedom of Information Act 1991?
Has the FoI Act been interpreted and administered to ensure an improvement in democratic government in Tasmania by;
(b) by increasing the ability of the people of Tasmania to participate in their governance.
The recently retired NSW Ombudsman, David Landa, in one of his last reports to the NSW Parliament, Freedom of Information - Way Ahead, has called for a range of reforms which are a combination of the best elements of the Freedom of Information Act 1991 (Tas) and a number of suggestions that attempt to achieve the same objectives to those I have suggested in this submission. See Attachment 2 for a summary of his major observations and recommendations.
Many commentators see the Freedom of Information Act 1991 as being the best FoI legislation in Australia. This Committee has the opportunity to ensure that Tasmania continues to lead the pack along the long road to open government.
While being highly critical of the current Government's attempts to amend the Freedom of Information Act I have attempted to suggest positive ways to achieve the objectives of the legislation.