Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I second the motion. I am happy to support the member for Perth's motion that this House expresses concern at the culture of secrecy prevalent in the government and the serious undermining of the core principles enshrined in the freedom-of-information legislation, and also at the de-funding of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. And if I have time in my speech I will also mention the Open Government Partnership.

Amazingly, I am speaking straight after the member for Perth moved that motion. Nobody from the government cares about freedom of information. It could not be more stark to have no speakers on this motion. As the member for Perth touched on in her speech, freedom of information is always difficult and a challenge for government. But, obviously, a government needs to be accountable and needs to listen to the people. I know it is important for the coalition government, because in their pamphlet, the 'Our Plan' pamphlet, the one that was handed out everywhere before the 2013 election—that blue pamphlet with a picture of Malcolm Turnbull on the cover—they said that the coalition government would:

This brochure has Malcolm Turnbull on the cover. This is not like Jaymes Diaz, that candidate for Greenway, who had no idea about the plan. This is an experienced minister under the Howard government who was part of this plan, yet the Abbott-Turnbull government has broken that election promise. They have completely broken it without any consultation or announcement.

In the 2014 budget we saw the coalition saying they would abolish the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, without any discussion whatsoever and completely going against what the 'Our Plan' brochure stated. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner is Australia's transparency watchdog, something essential in a democracy. The OAIC oversees the FOI system, handles complaints and provides a cost-free, independent forum for appealing against government FOI decisions.

It is complicated. The coalition government said they would return the oversight of the FOI system to the Attorney-General's own department, a department which the secretary said took a hardball approach to FOI requests in Senate estimates last year. So much for improving transparency measures. And the government has made the Administrative Appeals Tribunal the only avenue for appealing unsatisfactory FOI decisions by the government.

Let us look at that: if you want to challenge a refusal to release documents, or if they are lost in the process, as the member for Perth outlined in her speech, then under FOI you will now have to pay over $800 just to file the appeal in the AAT, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and you will lose the support of the OAIC. I know that the member for Isaacs, Mark Dreyfus, a QC with experience in administrative law, has gone to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal just to have a look at the Attorney-General's diary. Not everyone has a QC handy when they have got an inquiry, so I would suggest this is a complete blockage of transparency and open government and democracy. It has a hint of that 'on water' matter, as we saw in that train wreck of an interview on the weekend where the immigration minister spoke to Barrie Cassidy on Insiders. If you get in trouble, just make it an on-water matter. It is like he is walking around with his feet in two buckets of water at the moment just trying to avoid any open government. They seem committed to secrecy, to opacity, to obfuscation and to making it more difficult for Australians to know what is going on.

The OAIC was established as part of Labor's commitment to improve transparency and accountability, which we made a commitment to before the 2007 election. When we made a commitment we stuck to it. We still believe strongly in that need for an independent FOI watchdog and it is bizarre to think that here, in 2015, we have such a backflip.

I also wanted to touch on the other aspect of the member for Perth's motion about the open government partnership. Over 65 participating countries have signed up for this. It started out with only eight countries; countries such as the USA, UK, Canada and New Zealand have signed up for this. There is a ranking. It would be bizarre to think that in 2015 we would try to disentangle ourselves from that commitment to the open government partnership. (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context