Page 2052 - Week 06 - Thursday, 7 May 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
maintained in the form that it is within the western democracies. It is why our democracies are as strong as they are.
The government has, of course, consistently maintained that releasing the functional review would undermine that fundamentally important principle of our system of government and that it would compromise the capacity of this government and, importantly, future ACT governments to discharge responsibilities properly. That was, of course, the nub of our submission to Sir Laurence—asserting executive privilege. We in the government particularly welcome his adoption of our central arguments as the core of his decision. I think it is notable that the Speaker did not go to this point in his address just now, but Sir Laurence in his decision states:
I have been provided with a copy of the Report and an “Outline of Claim for Executive Privilege” made by the Chief Minister. I have also been provided with a relatively comprehensive collection of extracts from Hansard, press clippings and some Committee Reports touching upon the substance of various public service issues relevant to the Report. These documents—
in the words of Sir Laurence Street, in the report; not touched on by the Speaker—
present all of the material necessary for me, as the Independent Legal Arbiter, to appraise in deciding whether the claim for Cabinet immunity should be upheld.
Sir Laurence Street did not have any concern about the nature of the material before him. He believed he had all the information necessary for him to make his decision. He refers to that in his decision. He had the Hansard, he had the committee reports, he had the press clippings, he had a full array of material and he explicitly states in his report that as far as he was concerned he had all the materials necessary for him, as independent legal arbiter, to make the decision that he went on to make. Sir Laurence’s decision was that the functional review falls “well within the field of legitimate Cabinet immunity”. Sir Laurence recognises that the report addresses:
… topics which raise considerations at the very heart of the functioning of executive government, and with that, collective ministerial responsibility.
The government’s submission to Sir Laurence was adopted verbatim—he is criticised for this—subject to the proviso that it is the content of the document itself that is decisive. This is what Sir Laurence found; these are his findings:
The Report was prepared solely for submission to Cabinet. It was presented to Cabinet in circumstances of strict confidentiality. A comparison of its terms with decisions made by Cabinet would inevitably indicate the nature of the deliberations of Cabinet in accepting or rejecting (in whole or in part) the contents of the Report.
Further, giving the Legislative Assembly access to the Report is inconsistent with ministerial responsibility, individually or collectively, as it is the responsibility of Cabinet to determine what use is to be made of the Report, which was commissioned by it for the sole purposes of the executive government. Production of the Report is not reasonably necessary for the proper
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .