Page 221 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 10 December 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
subvert all of those fundamental principles that are basic to the strength of our democracy. Motions such as this seek to weaken it.
The Westminster system allows the executive government of the day to receive and consider frank and fearless advice and it allows policy options to be debated freely within cabinet. It would be a significant departure if we were simply to abandon those principles for political advantage, and that is what the Liberal Party today seeks to do. The findings of the functional review are there for any Canberran to see in the contents of the 2006-2007 budget papers. The financial implications and the basis of the decisions flowing from the functional review were reported transparently and openly in the budget papers.
The mania of the Liberals to see the documents really does verge on pathology—and pathology, of course, is dangerous and catching. That is what I mean about setting a precedent. The government is content to abide by the decisions of an independent arbiter. We have committed to that in our agreement with the Greens. Whilst I have to say that it is a significant departure from principles that I have adhered to strictly and always supported, it is a departure which we accept as an existing reality.
I do believe that this is an incredibly important issue and an incredibly important debate. The precedent sought to be set by the Liberals is extremely dangerous, self-serving and a position which in government they stood against fiercely, vehemently and consistently through their then leader Kate Carnell. She was a leader of some statue and capacity, of course, who led the Liberal Party with distinction. She did respect the Westminster system and the convention and the operation of the cabinet. She defended them in just the way that I have today. Of course, she would have rejected and been appalled by the arguments which the Leader of the Opposition seeks to make today in relation to this issue.
I will conclude on this point: there are a significant number of individuals who in good faith involved themselves in this process, who worked hard on this process, on a very clear understanding and commitment that their involvement in the development of the strategic and functional review report would be treated confidentially. It would be a major breach of that trust, faith and commitment under which they operated for that commitment to be broken in this way for the purpose of political advantage.
There is a question of honour involved in this particular decision as well. This is a question of honour. Commitments were made and understandings were given and granted to people participating in this process that their contributions would be treated as confidential. I could provide advice from some of those involved in this process if you wished—one of them has contacted my office today—that their participation in this review and report was confidential. They would regard it as a major breach of trust for that understanding to be broken in this way. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (3.39): This document has a long history in the Assembly. It was written in 2006 and it has been the subject of much debate, both in and out of the Assembly. Motions calling for its public release have previously been debated. The public accounts committee of the previous Assembly called for the release of the strategic and functional review to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .