Page 2322 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 16 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MOORE: Mr Lamont says that it is just politicking. There is an element of politicking in it, as there is in almost everything we do. Mr Lamont never does any politicking! Nevertheless, there is a very important issue raised by this matter, the issue of open government. This is a perfect opportunity for us to sit back and have a look at what we mean by open government and what we are prepared to do about it.
It is one thing to stand up and make a lot of noises and point your finger at the Government and say, "You have done terrible things. You have called in the police and the police are now following this up". It is quite clear that, once the police have been called in, the legislation is there, there is a serious offence, and the police are doing the job they should do. I think it is appropriate for us to clarify that there should be no criticism of the police on this issue. The police are doing their job according to the legislation. But the legislation is something with which we deal, and therefore it is something on which we can take some action or decide not to take some action. In other words, you will have the opportunity to act according to where your mouth has been.
It seems to me that what has happened with this Act is that there has been very special treatment for governments. Governments have decided to look after themselves in a very special way. Had this legislation applied right across the government and private sectors, I would have been more reluctant to seek to have this section removed. If on removing this section, should that happen, the law is therefore inadequate, then it is also inadequate for the private sector. I cite as an example information that needs protection in banks, in the stock market, or in a business that is involved in the development of high technology or computer software. These are all businesses that feel that they have the right to protection of information. If we have not protected that information well enough, we ought protect it right across the board, not just look after ourselves, not just look after No. 1. If this amendment is supported, we may see a flurry of action to ensure that a similar section is inserted into the Crimes Act. That may or may not be a good thing, but at least it would be a balanced approach.
It is important for us to try to determine just what we mean by open government. I took time out to contact Ted Mack and find out what he did in terms of North Sydney and open government. A number of arguments were put after I announced publicly that I intended to introduce this Bill, and one of the most important and the one that carried most weight with me was the argument about commercial-in-confidence. I had some concern about what happened in North Sydney, a city council with what many people claimed was the most open form of government. It actually paralleled the time when the greatest number of developments anywhere in Australia were occurring in North Sydney. I wanted to know what happened about commercial-in-confidence. They simply did not allow commercial-in-confidence. There was no such thing in the North Sydney Council.
I asked what happened about tendering, because tendering is a good example of when people deserve protection. The protection that was provided was that when tenders were called they were put in a locked box. That box was opened in public, in front of people who wanted to be there. The tenders were then opened
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .