Page 2619 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 2 July 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
deciding whether to withhold information under an exemption or in disclosing that information.
With that, I would like to turn to some of the specific issues raised in the MPI about the alleged failure of the government to release all documents. And of course, one of those matters that the opposition seek to advance is the matter of the release of documents that might relate to cabinet decision making. I would draw the opposition’s attention to one of the cornerstone exemptions in the legislation, which is the executive documents exemption, section 35 of the act. It does not have an additional public interest test because the importance of the exemption is so clear. It is unfortunate that those opposite do not seem to understand it.
This exemption recognises the role of cabinet as the peak decision-making body in the Australian Capital Territory, which entitles its deliberations and decisions to a high level of confidentiality. Ministers involved in cabinet deliberations must be entitled to express their views with openness and candour. It would cause great harm to the integrity of the decision-making processes were ministers unable to enter into robust debate about matters before cabinet if that debate could become public. It would also lead to a situation that could see a minister unable to discuss matters without intervention from lobbyists and others because of a release of information.
In this regard I would draw members’ attention to the recent review of the Queensland Freedom of Information Act, which was released less than a month ago, where it commented on the issue of cabinet document exemptions. And in that report the author, Mr Solomon, and others said:
Cabinet and the doctrine of ministerial responsibility are at the heart of the Westminster system of government. The system relies on secrecy to protect its central tenet: unity of the executive government. Every country and every sub-national government that subscribes to the Westminster system has included within their freedom of information laws special exemption for Cabinet documents.
The doctrine of collective ministerial responsibility requires that all ministers subscribe to policies determined by (or on behalf of) the Cabinet, irrespective of their personal views. This means that material of any kind that indicates a minister made a submission to Cabinet at odds with the view finally determined by the Cabinet or that he or she dissented from a Cabinet decision whether during debate or when a decision was taken, must not be publicly revealed.
This is particularly important and explains and, indeed, outlines the rationale that the Chief Minister has adopted in relation to the release of documents that those opposite seek to have released. The findings made by the review conducted by Mr Solomon include a recommendation for a more liberal approach by government to the public release of cabinet documents, such as agendas and material on which decisions have been made but not in breach of the doctrine of ministerial responsibility. At no point does the report recommend the removal of an exemption for cabinet documents, noting that the doctrine of ministerial responsibility is so fundamental that to do otherwise would undermine the deliberative processes of executive government.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .