Page 659 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
misled by the machinations of other cabinet members who had control over the flow of information in the cabinet and who presented misleading or incomplete factual information regarding the legality and the risks involved in launching a non-UN sanctioned invasion of Iraq.
I will quote the tribunal because I think it is important to hear this language. It said:
We have decided that the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the formal minutes of two Cabinet meetings at which ministers decided to commit forces to military action in Iraq did not … outweigh the public interest in disclosure.
That is a really interesting case study, and I think that as we go on to examine this in greater detail over the next 12 months through a process of review of the act that is the kind of example we need to be very mindful of.
Having said all that, I guess I am making the point that these amendments are a radical departure from the objects of the Freedom of Information Act, which I spoke about last time I stood up, and I doubt the Attorney-General has received adequate advice on the implications of creating this new species of secret document. Fortunately, the definition of cabinet documents in the Attorney-General’s amendment is sufficiently well defined and I am not really concerned that it will create much scope for mischief in improperly classifying documents.
Consequently, as Mrs Dunne has foreshadowed, the Greens will, for the time being, accept the Attorney-General’s arguments for the protection of the cabinet notebook and we are willing to support this amendment. But I would like to take this opportunity to foreshadow that we can expect a new method of striking an appropriate balance for the protection of cabinet documents to come out of the inquiry conducted by this Assembly. I am sure there will be recommendations on this, and we will be looking to find a better more clear-cut way, a way that enables appropriate transparency so that this provision will exist only until such time as those recommendations find their way into law.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (4.03): I will make a few points, if I may, to respond to some of the points made in relation to this amendment.
Mrs Dunne asserts that I am introducing a whole new class of documents that are exempt and asks why this needs to be done, given that the system has worked well for 20 years? Well, it needs to be done because for 20 years conclusive certificates have been able to be issued in relation to the cabinet notebook. Mrs Dunne is proposing to remove that. That is why this is being done.
Mrs Dunne is proposing that the mechanism that has been used for the past 20 years to provide appropriate protection to these documents because of their sensitivity and because of the importance of maintaining their confidentiality for the good workings of cabinet government is removed. She is proposing to say that conclusive certificates
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .