Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 7391 revised:

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (lines 1 to 26), omit Schedule 1, substitute:

Schedule 1—Amendments

Freedom of Information Act 1982

1 After section 6A

  Insert:

6B Department of the House of Representatives, Department of the Senate and Department of Parliamentary Services

(1) This Act does not apply to any request for access to a document of the Department of the House of Representatives, the Department of the Senate or the Department of Parliamentary Services unless the document relates to matters of an administrative nature.

(2) For the avoidance of doubt, the reference to a document of an administrative nature in subsection (1) includes a document to the extent that is:

  (a) statistical information about the activities of the Department; or

  (b) information about the expenditure of public moneys; or

  (c) information about payments to a Senator or member of the House of Representatives; or

  (d) information about services and facilities provided to a Senator or member of the House of Representatives; or

  (e) information about assets, resources, support systems and other administrative matters of the Department.

(3) For the avoidance of doubt, the reference to a document of an administrative nature in subsection (1) does not include a document to the extent that it is:

  (a) research or advice provided to a Senator or member of the House of Representatives; or

  (b) information held on behalf of a Senator or member of the House of Representatives; or

  (c) information about how a Senator or member of the House of Representatives performs their role as a Senator or member of the House of Representatives; or

  (d) any advice provided to a Senator or member of the House of Representatives; or

  (e) information that is otherwise subject to parliamentary privilege.

(4) For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this section limits or infringes the powers, privileges and immunities of the Houses of the Parliament.

This amendment defines the FOI applications that can be made in relation to parliamentary departments and office holders. The amendment is that information relating to the parliamentary departments, office holders' use of public resources and departmental administrative functions should be subject to FOI, while information relating to parliamentary proceedings, matters of political strategy or an MP's activities—for example, when dealing with constituents—are not.

I would just like to spell it out and give you some examples of what that means. I would argue strongly that, when you look at the detail, it really is hard to understand why this is being opposed. FOI applications would be limited to statistical information about the department's activities; information about the expenditure of public money—including payments to members and senators, as well as payments to services and facilities to support parliamentarians in Parliament House; and information about the department's assets, resources, support systems and other administrative matters. The following would be excluded from FOI requests: research or advice to members of parliament provided by the Parliamentary Library; information held by the parliamentary departments solely as an agent for or on behalf of the House of Representatives, the Senate or a member of parliament, regardless of whether that information resides on facilities provided by the parliamentary departments; information held by a parliamentary department about a member of parliament in relation to the member's performance or his or her role and functions as a member; and advice provided by the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 staff, irrespective of whether or not parliamentary privilege applies to a member of parliament.

In fact, when you put those two together—what is in and what is out—it is very responsible. It is actually very limiting. As I said in the second reading debate, there is nothing in this group of amendments that limits or affects any privileges, immunities or powers of the House of Representatives or the Senate. That the Senate FOI regime would not apply to any matter subject to parliamentary privilege is clearly achieved. I commend the Greens amendment (1) to the Senate.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition does not support the Greens amendment. In our view, the parliamentary departments covered do a very extensive job of making relevant information available and, as I stated in my second reading contribution, this does not preclude the future consideration of it by the parliament. But, due to the unexpected removal of the exemption or the apparent nature of it, being made last year, we believe that this needs to be reinstated. A future parliament can reconsider it.

I will conclude by saying that I am happy to respectfully disagree with Senator Rhiannon, but I will not be lectured here on bills being rushed through, given I have sat in this very chair on many occasions on bills—that are on electoral matters and on audit matters—where the Greens have supported a government guillotine, where there was no opposition contribution in a second reading debate and there were no opposition, government or minor party contributions to the consideration of amendments to very important legislation. I think Senator Rhiannon might be able to come down a bit off the soapbox before we get a lecture.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that the government rejects this amendment. The effect of the proposed amendment is to make a substantive amendment to the FOI Act: to change the application of the FOI Act to include the parliamentary departments. The application of the FOI Act to the parliamentary departments has been considered by Dr Hawke's FOI review. It is premature for the government to take action to amend the FOI Act before it has had an opportunity to consider and respond to recommendations in the review. The government understands that Dr Hawke has completed his review and is in the process of preparing a report on that review. The Attorney-General expects to receive Dr Hawke's report in coming weeks. In the meantime, the government has agreed to the request of the Presiding Officers to amend the Parliamentary Service Act as an interim measure to ensure that parliamentary departments are not exposed to requests they are not currently in a position to handle.

The bill as drafted takes into account the views expressed by the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Department of the House of Representatives, the Department of the Senate, the Department of Parliamentary Services, the Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library, and the Parliamentary Library. Consequently, the government does not support the Greens amendment at this time. Once the government has received and has had an opportunity to consider a response to Dr Hawke's report, the government will make a fully considered decision on the application of the FOI Act to the parliamentary departments.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, could you explain why the legislation has been brought in prior to the Hawke review being available for our consideration, considering that when the former Attorney-General established the Hawke review it was clearly understood that it would review the very issue that we are now grappling with in this legislation?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is an interim measure to return us to where we were. At the moment we have got ahead of the Hawke review, so this is an interim measure to restore the status quo.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 7391 revised, moved by Senator Rhiannon on behalf of the Australian Greens, be agreed to.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (2) on sheet 7391 revised:

(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (lines 1 to 26), omit Schedule 1, substitute:

Schedule 1—Amendments

Freedom of Information Act 1982

6B Department of the House of Representatives, Department of the Senate and Department of Parliamentary Services

1 After section 6A

  Insert:

(1) This Act does not apply to any request for access to a document of the Department of the House of Representatives, the Department of the Senate or the Department of Parliamentary Services unless the document relates to matters of an administrative nature.

(2) For the avoidance of doubt, the reference to a document of an administrative nature in subsection (1) does not include research or advice provided to a Senator or a member of the House of Representatives by the Parliamentary Library.

(3) For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this section limits or infringes the powers, privileges and immunities of the Houses of the Parliament.

This limits FOI applications to documents of an administrative matter only. It really should be difficult for Labor and the coalition to justify not supporting this lesser second amendment. I call it a lesser second amendment because it is a much reduced form of FOI. Even the parliamentary departments—the Department of the Senate, the Department of the House of Representatives and the Department of Parliamentary Services—have publicly supported this position. They are okay with this degree of openness. So, it will be interesting to hear the minister as to why they are not ready to support this amendment when the departments themselves are comfortable with it. For those three departments and office holders, while they are subject to the FOI Act, this amendment limits access to administrative matters only and this amendment excludes research or advice to members of parliament provided by the Parliamentary Library. It makes it explicit that nothing limits or affects any privileges, immunities or powers of the House of Representatives or the Senate. I do commend Greens amendment (2) to the Senate.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that the government will not be supporting this amendment either. As we have indicated, this is an interim bill to restore the status quo. We are looking forward to giving final consideration to the Hawke report, and we think it is pre-empting the discussions and the full consideration of that report by moving these amendments today.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the reasons outlined earlier, the coalition does not support this amendment moved by Senator Rhiannon. This bill in no way precludes future acts by the parliament. As I stated earlier, the parliamentary departments have an exemplary record in releasing information, particularly of this nature, and we are awaiting more formal review of the FOI provisions. This bill is an interim measure to reinstate the status quo that was inadvertently overturned and only became apparent a decade after it occurred.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, considering that you are now calling this an interim measure, why will you not support what the departments themselves are saying? If you want an interim measure, that is precisely what this amendment is, because it is what the departments say they are willing to work under.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I have indicated, we are giving consideration to all of these matters. We have now received the Hawke report. We do not believe there is a need to move this at this point.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that Greens amendment (2) on sheet 7391 revised be agreed to.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (3) on sheet 7391 revised:

(3) Page 3 (after line 26), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2—Further amendments

Parliamentary Allowances Act 1952

1 Section 4

  Omit "There are payable", substitute "(1) Subject to subsection (2), there are payable".

2 At the end of section 4

  Add:

(2) A member is only entitled to allowances if:

  (a) the member includes a link to the Department of Finance and Deregulation website in their biographical details on the Australian Parliament website; and

  (b) the link directs the user to the individual expenditure report of that member.

Note: In 2013, the Australian Parliament website is located at www.aph.gov.au.

This sets out a proactive publication requirement of MPs' expenditure. It is actually very minimal in what it sets out to do. It creates an obligation that all senators and members be required to provide a link on their official parliamentary website to their individual expenditure reports on the Finance website. I say it is minimal because we again need to remember the experience in Scotland. Scotland has online searchable records of MPs' expenditure. All this is about is providing a link. There are a few steps one has to go through to be able to obtain the information. Why shouldn't that information be public? It is public money; it should be publicly available and easy to search. It is not good enough to say no. It is one small step to achieve some level of scrutiny of the considerable public money that we as MPs have the privilege to use. I commend the amendment to the chamber.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I again indicate that we believe this should be looked at as a whole package. The amendments have merit, but we believe they should be considered as part of a whole package and so we will not be supporting them.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition opposes the amendment moved by Senator Rhiannon.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that amendment (3) on sheet 7391 revised 2 be agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN: Senator Rhiannon, just to confirm: you do not wish to pursue any further amendments?

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: The question now is that the bill stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.