Page 2863 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We took it from that. We put it into the parliamentary agreement. It was agreed by the Labor government. We really felt that it was important, as I said, to have an independent person, someone separate from this parliament, who made that decision about which documents fell into that category that attracted executive privilege.
Sir Laurence Street reported back in May 2009 and I will come to that decision in a moment. But the reason why we also felt it was important was that we do believe it is important to get information out there to the public. It is also about our having, as representatives, as legislators, the best information so that we can make the best policy and formulate policy in this place and formulate laws in this place.
We do recognise that there is a tension between cabinet-in-confidence material and what should be in the public domain but as I said, some water has passed under the bridge. Times have changed a little since that first discussion back in 2008. Since then we have had the inquiry here in the Assembly into the Freedom of Information Act. There have been inquiries at the federal level. There have been moves in Queensland to change their laws in that regard. So we do see that there is very much a move towards more open government and more transparent government, more information being out there.
Of course things have changed in the world of technology too. It is not as hard these days. You can put reports online. They can be available. It is not about printing, publishing and distributing. It can be put up, as I said, very much using the web and other such technologies.
As I said, the Assembly has determined this matter. We created a process. That process was followed and the determination was made that it is not appropriate to release the review.
At the time, as I have stated, the Greens said that we did have some concerns about the practical operation of the mechanism. It clearly was not the inquisitorial-style process that we anticipated and I do hope that that can be resolved by the time we have cause to use that mechanism again.
In spite of these concerns, the Greens’ view is that we should let that decision stand. We said at the time we would accept that decision and that remains our position. Shane Rattenbury said in a speech back in May:
We have said that we will accept and abide by the arbiter’s decision, and we will.
The Greens remain committed to that decision. There must be an end point and I think, for this particular document, the end point has been reached, that is, of course, until 2016 when the cabinet disclosure provisions kick in and it is finally made public. Alternatively, of course, I would welcome government, and would urge government, to consider changing its mind on the matter and releasing that Costello review to the public.
Mr Seselja: That is what this vote is about. Are you voting for it?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video