Freedom of information
Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (14:18): (972) My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council. Two weeks ago in response to questions from a journalist about whether the government follows parliamentary orders with respect to documents the Premier said, ‘We meet all of them.’ This was despite the fact that your government regularly fails to respond to documents requests in time, claims executive privilege over the vast majority of documents requested, thereby effectively failing to release them, and has never complied with section 10.03 of the standing orders, which outlines the process that must be followed when claims of executive privilege are made. As the Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council, can you provide assurances that your government now plans to follow parliamentary orders, including the standing orders, with respect to the release of documents?
The PRESIDENT: I might just take some advice. The Leader of the Government is not an official role in the general orders. Can I just get one minute. I might get some advice. I think it probably would more be within the remit of the Attorney-General, but in saying that, I think in this instance I might let the minister answer as best she can.
Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Regional Development) (14:20): I do not have a problem with the question – just where it might sit. I think I am previously on the record – and this answer is probably a bit more suited to a motion than question time. We have a lot of documents motions in this chamber. It is the practice of the government to rarely, if at all, oppose them so that things can go through processes. The problem that we have is an expectation that a documents motion is then going to result in a free flowing of documents without a proper assessment. That is what we are grappling with. For instance, I was disappointed to see the Greens take the opportunity to say that Minister Blandthorn had not delivered the documents in relation to your request. Our initial assessment of that exact request is 1 million documents – 1 million documents from the department that is currently looking at how to improve child protection and early education. Imagine the amount of resources it would take to process a request of that nature.
There is personal information, there is commercial in confidence – there are a range of issues that we have to consider before we release documents. This chamber made a collective decision that we will have short-form documents motions, which are resulting in two document requests every single sitting week. Those are then going into processes that we are trying to respond to. But half of the time responding is actually having to filter through what is inappropriate to release.
I am open to a conversation for improvements, but there has to be an acknowledgement that when we want to facilitate documents going out, we have to be responsible, particularly in the context of private information or damaging information. It is not about us wanting to hold things for government’s purposes. We receive frank and fearless advice from our departments about what can and cannot go. They sit there and we go, ‘We’ve got to respond to this,’ and they go, ‘Well, it will take us weeks, sometimes years, to go through some of these processes.’ So I would invite a conversation with interested members and representatives of parties in relation to the improvement of that, because I understand it is not working for anyone. But again, I think there are two document motions tomorrow, and they continue to go.
If you ask the public if they want the Victorian government public service to be tied up looking at documents, locked into rooms constantly at the expense of delivering services, I think people would expect a bit of a balance there. But when I can point to one request that went to Minister Blandthorn, it is our estimate that more than 1 million documents may require a review to identify and redact which are in scope of the actual request that you made. So there is a conversation about the scope, and it is something that we are certainly up to having conversations about.
Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (14:23): I appreciate that answer. I will point out that it certainly touched on some of the logistics challenges with responding within the timeframe, but when documents are produced we still see widespread claims of executive privilege over the vast majority of things that are requested by this Parliament. New South Wales has standing orders in regard to executive privilege claims that are identical to those in the Victorian Parliament. Governments there, both Labor and Liberal, routinely follow those orders with respect to documents requests. This includes appointing an independent arbiter in situations where there is a dispute about executive privilege claims. Why has this government never followed the Legislative Council standing orders with respect to documents requests when this is routinely done by New South Wales governments?
Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Treasurer, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Regional Development) (14:24): I think just in terms of continuing my comments on the previous question, I have expressed that I am open to these conversations. No-one has actually come to me since I have had that invitation open in relation to suggestions. There is an opportunity for the Procedure Committee to use it. There are some processes in New South Wales. We have gone up and we have looked at those processes; we have had conversations with the Leader of the Government in the upper house in relation to some of those matters. But it goes back to, again, having to have a conversation that is broader than just process. You have also got to have a conversation about scope, because all that would do is shift a lot of the onerous work of departments to being duplicated by another body. So in terms of making sure that we have the right processes in place to facilitate any of those changes, again, I remain open to those conversations. I would say that I have said this, I reckon, six months ago, and I have not received any suggestions from anyone in the Parliament. The invitation remains open. It is a collective. This is a chamber decision, not a government decision.