2015-08-05
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — Obviously I will be supporting the amendment. It is an amendment put forward by the Greens to our own bill. During the second-reading debate there was a certain amount of confusion about the mechanics of the bill, never mind the confusion about how Labor is actually voting on this bill. It was stated during the debate that this bill does nothing because the existing provisions in the Freedom of Information Act 1982 protect commercial-in-confidence matters and trade secrets. We need to be very clear about this. The special exemption for Alcoa that exists is as follows:
A document relating to the establishment, operation or carrying on of the smelter or affecting or relating to the smelter site or anything done or to be done on or in relation to the smelter site is an exempt document for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 1982.
Now that is an extraordinarily wide, in fact an all-encompassing, FOI exemption. If our bill were to pass both houses of the Parliament, Alcoa would still be able to claim that documents may have commercial-in-confidence or trade secrets because the ordinary provisions as they apply to every other commercial entity in Victoria would also apply to Alcoa in the normal way. Given that we have now narrowed the scope of the bill to relate only to documents that would be created and held by the public sector after the act comes into force, and given that we have narrowed it to relate only to the Point Henry smelter site, but in reality to the connected elements to that — which is the now closed power plant and the now to be rehabilitated coalmine — it really is a set of very narrow matters that will be freed up to be subject to FOI.
We also heard some bland assurances that the government has an inquiry underway and that we will learn everything we need to know from that. Let me make it very clear that the operation of this provision as it exists in law prior to today is a very real provision. When I sought a copy of the health risk assessment prepared by Alcoa and provided to the Environment Protection Authority, I was refused under FOI quoting the section that we are ready to eliminate from the statute book if we can. So it needs to be understood that this exemption as it exists now is absolute and that any piece of paper or document that has anything at all to do with the former and now closed Point Henry smelter, the mine and the coal-fired power plant — and it does not matter if it is do with health, rehabilitation, the condition of the site or the quality of the revegetation — as long as it is connected in a way that the current provision describes, it has an absolutely unbreakable exemption from the Freedom of Information Act 1982.
Therefore it is really quite important for the community and anybody with an interest in the future rehabilitation of the site to have this provision passed, without which they will not be able to see one single skerrick of paper that passes between these various government departments and between the government and Alcoa as they seek to determine what is the proper method for rehabilitating this site. We need to bear in mind that it has been many decades since we have rehabilitated a coalmine in Victoria and the job could be tricky and expensive, and that whatever is left when Alcoa packs up will be a legacy for the people of Victoria to look after and manage for centuries to come. We have to get this absolutely right. In the normal practices, if it was any company other than Alcoa, we would have access to the government's deliberations through the FOI act.
[Speech was interrupted. Click here to view the full debate.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — In relation to the first matter, Ms Shing referred to the explanatory memorandum which uses the word 'Portland'. Of course we have moved on now and proposed an amendment so that we are no longer talking about Portland. In terms of the powers of the restarted inquiry into Hazelwood, it is my understanding that it having been established under the Inquiries Act 2014 it is a royal commission in all but name. Like Ms Shing, I also followed closely the hearings and the deliberations and report of the committee, but if a royal commission has the power to seek documents, to demand them from persons, in the same way that this house does, then yes, it is entirely possible. In fact I am sure everybody participating in that committee would hope that it has access to all the documents that it needs.
[Speech was interrupted. Click here to view the full debate.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — This is a committee stage in relation to a bill that amends different acts. I am not here to be an expert on what the powers of that particular committee are under the Inquiries Act.
[Speech was interrupted. Click here to view the full debate.]
Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) — I do not believe we have been provided with any information about what the government is requiring of Alcoa by way of rehabilitation at the Anglesea site, and yet there are of course a huge number of questions to be asked about how that rehabilitation will move forward.