Page 2324 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 16 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It may well be, therefore, that this clause, reworked, could reappear in the Crimes Act in order to protect everybody; but at this point we need to look at it very carefully. Businesses such as Westpac and the Commonwealth Bank - I use banks because I think they are good examples - do not say to people, "We are an open business". That is not what they are there for. They are there for profit. But a government that says, "We are an open government; our processes are open" needs to look very carefully at how they can continue to open up the processes.
Mr Berry: Would you mind if we sent somebody down to your office to rifle through your filing cabinet?
MR MOORE: Both the Labor Government and the Alliance Government have taken steps to open up government more and more, and that is something we should continue to do. Mr Berry interjected, "Do you mind if we have somebody come through and rifle through your office?". I will say to Mr Berry that, as far as I am aware, in the First Assembly certainly, I was one of the few members who, from the word go, said that they had no interest in a safe.
Mr Connolly: Who shredded a document that he was required to table?
MR MOORE: I have no interest in a safe. It is much easier for me to operate in a different way. Madam Speaker, it seems to me that we have the opportunity to work in an open system in many ways, and this is a perfect opportunity to do so. What this Bill does, more importantly than anything - - -
Mr Kaine: A photocopier on the one hand for leaked documents and a shredder on the other to get rid of the hot ones.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order!
MR MOORE: Madam Speaker, the interjections on shredding documents can hardly be left uncommented on. The way the legislation is at the moment, it is important for people who have documents to protect their sources from two years' imprisonment. It may well be that the law sets up this method of thinking, and all of us, me included, are in a position to rethink how we can operate open government further and further. I am not suggesting for one minute that I have all the answers. I am suggesting, and I said it quite clearly before, that there have been moves since the beginning of self-government to open government more and more. What I am saying is that we now have the opportunity to take another step and look at these two sections. I must say that I am much more enthusiastic about removing section 10 than I am about removing section 11; nevertheless it is an important step for us to consider.
By tabling this Bill I am providing an opportunity for us to consider yet another step in opening our government further and further, and I think it is an appropriate step. It is a step which says that we do not just have to pay lip-service to open government; that we can get closer and closer to the reality of open government.
Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .