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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (10 May) . . Page.. 1398 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

polices are joint policies. The ACT government has just as much interest in them as does ITC, and ITC is obliged to provide to BOPL copies of those documents. All that BOPL has to do is ask for them.

When this Assembly asks for copies, all BOPL, the government agency, has to do under this contract is ask ITC for a copy of the contract of the insurance policies, if they did not already have them, and there is no basis for ITC to decline to provide them.

In light of what is said in that contract, for the Chief Minister and her deputy to come to this place and say that the ACT government has no interest in these insurance polices and that we are not entitled to have them tabled in this place is a subterfuge. One has to ask: why have they taken that view? We are back to the old habit of this government, commented upon by the Canberra Times, that every time we want information it falls back on the confidentiality argument. It says, "No, we cannot give it to you because it is commercial-in-confidence." It is the same old trick. It does not stand up when you read the contract between the BOPL and ITC. I can see no reason whatsoever why the interests of ITC would be compromised by that document, to which the ACT government is a joint signatory and under which it is a joint beneficiary in the event of cancellation, being made available in this place.

I support paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of Mr Stanhope's motion. As I said before, if he is prepared to remove paragraph (iv), which might cause some difficulty, or to agree to dealing with the four paragraphs seriatim so I can vote accordingly on each of them, then I am happy to support three-quarters of his motion.

MS TUCKER (4.47): I will pick up from where Mr Kaine left off. I was going to express similar concerns. A number of contradictory statements have come from the government. If, as they claim, it is nothing to do with BOPL and the ACT government because the only signatory to that contract document is the International Touring Co, then it would appear they are in breach of contract. The contract requires that both parties be on that contract, so either they are or they are not. If they are not, there is another issue the Assembly needs to address later. We would expect greater diligence than that in ensuring that contract requirements were pursued.

Even if the contract did not require that both parties be on the contract, there is still an argument for the principles this government espouses on the use of commercial-in-confidence to be applied. I think I heard Mr Humphries say we need to apply a bullshit filter. I do not know whether that is parliamentary language, but the Speaker did not pick it up. If that is what Mr Humphries said, I always have my bullshit filter on in this place. It is on, believe me, Mr Humphries.

When I look at the principles and guidelines for the treatment of commercial information held by ACT government agencies, I want to pick up the line of Mr Quinlan's and Mr Stanhope's argument in response to the Chief Minister, who keeps saying, "What is the use of this?" She has switched the onus of responsibility for whether or not information should be freely available. That is not consistent with her guidelines. Clearly outlined in those guidelines is that the onus is definitely on the private firm and the government to justify why something has to be commercial-in-confidence. The public interest is served by having the default position that information is available because it involves taxpayers' money. That is the underlying principle of this government's

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