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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2619 ..

MR SMYTH

As an example, some years ago gas meters that were being installed in Canberra were found to be faulty. What if the government wanted to hide the fact that those meters were faulty? Members of the Assembly would then call for the report, and the minister might say, "This is a commercial-in-confidence report. I will give it to the clerk, and he can put it in his safe. Members can view it at any time, but it is confidential."

What do we as members do when we are given a report that reveals that Canberra residents are exposed to some danger but, because we have signed a confidentiality agreement, in theory we cannot use it? When does public interest override confidentiality?

This case concerns a matter of public interest. For many years, most people have accepted that they have some basic rights-for example, at an auction, on the hammer, when they have to pay a 10 per cent deposit. If they do not pay the deposit, they do not get the deal. There is no negotiation afterwards. That is the whole purpose of an auction. Those people who want to negotiate should embark on some other form of sale-for example, a lay-by system.

This is an attempt by executive government to limit the functions of this place. The executive is not in charge of the Assembly; we are. Any attempt to water down the power of the Assembly and to place terms and conditions on the receipt and use of documents limits us as members and sets a dangerous precedent.

The Clerk of the Senate said that he was "not aware of any precedent for a legislative chamber receiving documents on condition ...". If we ask for those documents, we might end up setting conditions for ourselves. It would be a retrograde step if we chose to do that tonight. However, we do not have to do that. We could ask for those documents to be produced and, if a public interest needs to be met, I think members have to meet it. After all, that is what we are here for.

This is an attempt, which we will discuss later this evening, by the executive to hinder the way members go about their business. It is quite clear from Egan v Chadwick that legal precedent can be overcome by a request by the Assembly or by chambers. Given the interest in the way this matter has been conducted and the lack of information forthcoming from the minister, it is clearly appropriate for these documents to be tabled in the Assembly and for members to have unfettered access to them-if they choose to use them and in the interest of the public.

If we accept the path suggested by the executive of limiting the way we do our business in this place, we will start the slide down a very slippery slope. How will you deny it the next time? How do you set up conditions that say this one is allowable, and that one is not allowable? Do we therefore set up a set of standing orders or subrules or guides on how documents are tabled? The more rules you make and the further you take this, the more limiting it becomes for members, and that is dangerous.

I suggest that the original motion as it stood, amended for the date effect, should stand. I take Ms Tucker's point that the best way to do it is to put it in the basis. I can see the case that she would make for that and keeping the document in the clerk's safe. But the

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