Page 2213 - Week 08 - Thursday, 10 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Kaine: Is that a secret government document that cannot be revealed?
Mr Humphries: Is that a secret document?
MR CONNOLLY: There is much agitation and opposition members are asking, "Is that a secret document?". Generally officials who get information hold it within their department. If Mr Humphries thinks that it is a good thing for a departmental officer to run around handing documents to opposition politicians, that is very sad. As I say, I am sure he would never have done that himself when he was a departmental officer under a Labor government, even though he was at all times an active member of the Liberal Party - at one stage, president of the party. I am sure he would never have taken official departmental documents, whether they be classified as top secret or unclassified general instructions, and passed them to his political colleagues to play politics with. However, unfortunately, that seems to be going on within one of my departments.
I would like to mention a directive which did go from my office to my department agencies in relation to access to information. It is directed to the two agency heads. It is over the signature of my senior private secretary, dated 8 September, and says:
It has come to our notice that non-Executive Members and staffers are still approaching departmental officers for information and/or advice without contacting this office in the first instance.
The Minister has asked that officials be reminded that such requests are to be channelled through this office.
I table that instruction. That is the standard procedure. That is the procedure that applied under the Alliance; that is the procedure that applies under this Government. Opposition members who have spoken have said that, in relation to dealings with my portfolios, that has not caused them problems. I expect to know when opposition members are seeking access to my officials, and I will make the decision. In most cases I am happy for them to proceed. That is what this so-called "leaked" minute says - that the office of the relevant Minister should be kept informed of any occasion when publicly available factual information is provided. That is similar - indeed identical, I would say - to the guidelines handed down during the period of the Alliance Government, which Mr Humphries referred to and which Ms Follett tabled this morning.
The principle of ministerial responsibility that Mr Westende referred to in his question demands that officials be accountable to Ministers, who are accountable to parliaments - not that officials be accountable to opposition or private members of parliament. The system breaks down if it works that way. The Opposition are getting agitated because we wish information held by government officials to be channelled through ministerial offices. Their strange position is beyond comprehension, because what is happening now is precisely what occurred under their administration. Are we peculiarly sensitive to leaks or criticisms?
Mr Humphries: According to the Canberra Times, yes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .