House debates

Wednesday, 29 May 2013

Bills

Parliamentary Service Amendment (Freedom of Information) Bill 2013; Second Reading

9:25 am

Photo of Mrs Bronwyn BishopMrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to concur with the remarks made by the minister who introduced the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Freedom of Information) Bill 2013, and again state that the aim of the bill is to restore the exclusion from the Freedom of Information Act the parliamentary departments and office holders under the act.

I would like to add some remarks, particularly about the library and the difficult position that the librarian has been placed in. Indeed, it has been a long-held and common-held view that the parliamentary departments were exempt from the FOI legislation. But in the case of the library, the determination by the information commissioner to the contrary—that is, saying that they are covered by the FOI Act—has placed the librarian in a very difficult position indeed. Indeed, the librarian is conflicted by that determination because it is in contradistinction to the provisions of the Parliamentary Services Act, notably section 38B and sections 45 and 46.

In January 2003 the librarian took the initiative, an important one, to write to all members and senators and other interested parties, pointing out the degree of difficulty she was placed in. And I would quote section 38B, which says:

(1) The functions of the Parliamentary Librarian are:

(a) to provide high quality information, analysis and advice to Senators and Members of the House of Representatives …

…   …   …

(2) The Parliamentary Librarian must perform the function mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):

(a) in a timely, impartial and confidential manner; …

She went on to say that although the commissioner thought this was too broad to cover everything, a senator's or member's request for advice and the librarian's response may qualify to be exempt under the act, particularly and notably under section 45, which was a breach of confidence provision, and section 46, which was about infringing the privileges of parliament. Indeed, she felt that other exemptions may be available.

I think it may be necessary, therefore, to place these matters beyond doubt. The librarian said:

I would like to assure you that, should I receive an application for access to client service under the FOI Act, my starting point would be that, in accordance with my statutory functions, information, analysis and advice provided by the Library to its clients is confidential. Unless I have evidence that something has taken place that demonstrates that none of the available exemptions apply, I would consider the advice to be exempt and refuse access to the document on this basis. I would also consider information relating to the making and timing of the request confidential.

Accordingly, I think it is vital that the parliament put the question beyond doubt and legislate to protect the librarian and uphold her duties under her relevant act. And should there be considered at any time in the future the need for legislation to be made to say specifically that certain things should be subject to the act, then that can be decided on its merits. So the opposition supports the legislation.

Comments

No comments