Page 656 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mrs Dunne may—I hope she does not, personally—live to regret such statements if she ever finds herself in the cabinet room. I hope that she does not, personally. I hope that scenario never comes to pass. But if it does I think she will live to regret it. Imagine going into a cabinet room where there are different views between portfolios and between ministers—and that is common and healthy in the Westminster system—knowing that what we say and what other ministers say about our proposals or ideas, as recorded in the cabinet notebook, are subject to FOI release, according to Mrs Dunne’s provisions, and could be made public.
How would that strike at the heart of maintaining cabinet solidarity? How would that strike at the heart of government, having reached a collective decision through cabinet, putting that position to the broader community, to the parliament and to everybody else outside of cabinet? How would that strike at the operation of cabinet? It would strike in a fundamental way, a devastating way. It is a reckless proposal by Mrs Dunne. Contrary to Mrs Dunne’s assertions, my understanding is that the commonwealth government is not proposing in any way that the cabinet notebook should be subject to the FOI act.
For Mrs Dunne to say that what I am proposing is not even something that Senator Faulkner—
Mrs Dunne: I was speaking about conclusive certificates.
MR CORBELL: is clearly false. Maybe she needs to clarify her comments because she made the sweeping suggestion that what I was doing was contrary to what the commonwealth review was proposing. In this respect she was absolutely wrong. We have heard no argument from her today as to why she believes the cabinet notebook itself, the record of cabinet discussion, should be made available through the FOI act.
What I am proposing today is a sensible and entirely reasonable change to her bill—to protect the cabinet notebook and to protect the discussions that occur in cabinet as being confidential and vital to the effective operations of cabinet government in the Westminster system. It is that fundamental, members. You need, I think, to test Mrs Dunne on why she believes it is reasonable for the FOI act to apply.
Mrs Dunne, may say, “The FOI act should apply, but we all know that tribunals and Supreme Court judges will deem these matters to be executive-in-confidence and take the view that they should not be released.” That is a bit of a circular argument from Mrs Dunne because if even she acknowledges that there is no way a tribunal or court will permit such documents to be released, why does she believe that the FOI act should apply in the first place? It is just a silly circular argument from Mrs Dunne.
This is an important amendment. It protects preserves and maintains the operation of cabinet government here in the ACT. It is fundamental in that regard. I commend the amendment to members.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (3.54): The opposition will be opposing this amendment, for the simple reason that what we have agreed is that our initial foray into electoral
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .