Page 2861 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
reviewer provided his decision in 2009 and I am confident there is no basis for this decision to be reviewed.
I have signalled my intention to implement initiatives around open government, including a commitment to provide, from next week, a weekly Chief Minister’s report on key issues discussed and decisions taken by the cabinet. Nevertheless, there still remains the need to allow for detailed cabinet deliberations to remain in confidence. This is a legitimate cabinet immunity.
The government has consistently maintained that releasing the functional review would undermine fundamentally important principles of our system of government and compromise the capacity of this, and future ACT governments, to discharge its responsibilities properly. Sir Laurence agreed with this argument and we will not be supporting the motion today.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (4.45): As the motion points out, this is the third time in this Assembly we have considered this issue and that is, of course, on top of the controversy that went with it during the previous Assembly. Before I turn to the substance of the particular issue, I would like to reflect on the broader concept of executive privilege and the appropriate space for government secrecy. This matter, the broader question of government disclosure, has not been completely resolved and there are a range of legal arguments still to be had about the scope of executive privilege.
I think it is almost settled that the only test should be that of public interest, and the class of the document is not relevant. This is certainly the Greens’ position. The central question is whether or not it is in the public interest. The fact that it is a cabinet document or part of any other class of document is simply irrelevant. This is the most simplistic way the issue at hand can be characterised and, despite some further technical legal issues around the margins, I think this is the question the Assembly should focus on. This is the approach that the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety adopted in their report into freedom of information reform, which of course has a significant overlap with the issue that we are discussing today.
I note that in the government’s submission to the independent arbiter back in 2009 the government appears to assert that the class of document is a relevant factor and selectively quotes from a range of decisions, ignoring the express contemplation of those decisions that disclosure may or may not be appropriate. So it is disappointing that we do not have a more thorough decision to guide us on the appropriate scope of the privilege that is afforded to government to ensure its effective operation.
My colleague Mr Rattenbury made extensive comments on this issue in response to the independent arbiter’s decision, and that was in May 2009, in relation to this matter. And I would take the opportunity to quote a couple of passages to reiterate the Greens’ position on the issue. Mr Rattenbury said:
The government’s case contained no discussion of the trend in advanced democratic systems towards narrowing or qualifying the extent of executive privilege, nor did it contain any judicial authorities which would support the case for release of the functional review. These glaring deficiencies highlight the need
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video