Page 2060 - Week 06 - Thursday, 7 May 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The problem with the decision that has been made by Justice Street—I think we all respect Justice Street, but if we are to assume that everything he says is correct just simply because he said it, then all processes should just go to him and he can be the arbiter on everything. That is not how it works.
This Assembly has always had the right to question the government, and question the decision on anything. In effect, the Assembly becomes the highest court in the territory. It is quite reasonable to bring things back here for decision and actually inquire into and look at decisions that are made. I do not recall ever asking for the deliberations of cabinet on the Costello functional review. I do not recall that ever being asked. If I am wrong—if somebody can prove me wrong—I would be happy to be corrected.
What the Assembly and others have consistently asked for is the report. Let me look at the ruling that is used, the principle. I will quote from Justice Street, because he is right in this regard. He said:
The principle establishing the immunity of Cabinet documents is not in doubt.
This was in the High Court in Commonwealth v Northern Land Council. He said:
… it has never been doubted that it is in the public interest that deliberations of Cabinet should remain confidential in order that the members of Cabinet may exchange differing views and at the same time maintain the principle of collective responsibility of any decision which may be made.
The deliberations are protected, and that is in the public interest. It is reasonable that cabinet, when supplied with information, has a frank and robust discussion and comes to a decision—and from that that cabinet solidarity proceeds.
The court case quoted looks at deliberations. It goes across to page 4 of the decision to say:
The documents in issue in that case were in fact documents which recorded the actual deliberations of Cabinet.
Again, Justice Street would be right. I do not believe they should be revealed, because then cabinet cannot have those discussions.
But that is not what has been asked for, and that is not what was asked for to be assessed. What was asked for was the Costello review—a review put together by an individual who is not a cabinet member, who does not have a vote in cabinet. That is what has been asked for, and that is why, fundamentally, you could say that perhaps this decision is wrong.
As Mr Rattenbury has pointed out, the problem here is that we have got a government that presented a case that Justice Street has accepted. You would accept that Justice Street would expect the case presented by the government to be accurate in all ways. But those who have dealt with Mr Stanhope over many years know that that is perhaps not the case.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .