Secrecy over gun advice wrong: judge
PREMIER Will Hodgman was wrong to refuse to release advice he said he received about the Liberals’ proposed changes to gun laws in Tasmania, a Supreme Court judge has found.
The decision means the practice of paying “lip service” to considering the public interest of information is no longer acceptable, according to a Right to Information expert.
Gun Control Australia appli plied under Right to Inform mation laws for advice about th the Liberals’ proposed changes to gun laws, announced in the fi final days of last year’s election campaign, that Mr Hodgman s said supported the Government’s position that the m changes would not breach the N National Firearms Agreement.
The RTI request was denied and Gun Control Australia took the matter to the Supreme Court.
The court heard Mr Hodgman referred to the advice, that he said he received from the Police Minister, in two media interviews in March last year.
In his decision handed down in Hobart yesterday, Justice Michael Brett ordered the RTI refusal be set aside and for it to be reconsidered “in accordance with the law”.
“At the most basic level of the argument, because the Premier referred to this advice in partial justification of the Government’s position, it is impossible for the public to assess that question and legitimately oppose or support the Government’s position in debate without being privy to that advice,” Justice Brett said.
Days before the state election it was revealed the Liberals had plans to double the length of some gun licences and make weapons such as pump-action shotguns more readily available. The party later backed away from the changes but has not ruled out changes after the completion of a parliamentary inquiry into gun laws.
Outside the court, lawyer and Gun Control Australia spokesman Roland Browne said: “The Supreme Court has basically said that the Act means what it says, that it points towards a release of information to better inform the public and these kind of public interest considerations that feed into how decisions are made have to be taken seriously.”
Mr Hodgman said the Government would “observe the outcome of the court proceedings”.
“And we’ll review it and take appropriate action,” he said. “RTI processes are handled independently of politicians, so it’s not for me to direct what should or shouldn’t be released.”
Mr Browne said the decision not to release the information was the Premier’s decision, made by his delegate.
University of Tasmania right to information expert Rick Snell said Justice Brett’s decision had “major ramifications” for the RTI Act and all government agencies, government businesses and councils.
“Justice Brett has made it clear that it is a mandatory requirement for a decision maker to give active consideration to the public interest in releasing the information and the practice of paying lip service to this requirement is no longer acceptable,” Associate Professor Snell said.
Associate Prof Snell said the decision meant a “very large number” of RTI decisions made in recent years would be classified as invalid.