Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (5 November) . . Page.. 3594 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

What the legislation is about, Mr Speaker, is changing a culture of secrecy, because in this area we have had anything but open government. Going into negotiations, there has generally been a culture of secrecy, and it is not just a culture of this Executive or the former Executive; it is a culture that is established by Executives around Australia. It is necessary to have this kind of legislation so that other Executives can understand that representatives of our parliament, the Executive, when they are at a ministerial council meeting, are constrained by legislation.

The first couple of clauses in the Bill are fairly standard clauses. The object of the Bill is set out very clearly. It is to ensure that the proper role of the legislature is not interfered with by necessity or compulsion to enact legislation arising from Executive agreements. There was a great deal of debate yesterday about COAG agreements and the impact they have had. This legislation is timely, Mr Speaker. It would be a great credit to this Third Assembly of the ACT if we were able to pass this legislation before we rise.

I think it is important to draw members' attention to some of the detail of the Bill. In the interpretation clause there is a definition of "interstate agreement". Because of this definition, the proposed Act applies only to issues which would lead to legislation. I am not intending to put a constraint on Ministers in negotiating other things that are matters of policy that may well be agreed. It is only when that policy will lead to legislation. The import of the legislation I am putting up is: What is the impact that an agreement has on how somebody might vote? What pressure will an agreement put on somebody who is entitled to look at legislation and vote openly?

There will be issues, Mr Speaker, which an Executive believes it is inappropriate for the legislature to know about at any given time, and that is why it is that in this Bill I provide the Schedule for such Acts. As a starting point, in that Schedule I include agreements that could be problems, such as where an ACT Minister and other Ministers make a reference to the National Crime Authority, perhaps on some matter of organised crime where secrecy is critical, which may in due time lead to changes in legislation. It is quite common for a recommendation from ministerial councils on the National Crime Authority, apparently, to do that, and I thank Mr Humphries's office for discussing this issue with me. So I have applied those to the Schedule. In the Schedule I also have an agreement reached in the course of meetings of the Australian Loan Council. They are matters of financial interest or something that we cannot interfere with anyway.

When I started this speech I extended to members an invitation to amend. I would also extend to members an invitation to add anything that would be appropriate to that Schedule. My guess is that the bureaucrats, having heard that invitation, will say, "Great. Let us just put everything that we ever make an agreement about in the Schedule". I do not think that will suit members here. It is quite clear from our debate on COAG and the resources legislation that we believe that we should be involved in the process, and it is that process that is absolutely critical.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .