Page 3051 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 17 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Where an official considers that the terms of a request would require going beyond the authorised scope of the above arrangements, the official should so indicate to the Member, and will be at liberty to raise the matter with the Secretary to the department or authority and the Minister and, if desired, with the Public Service Board.
Madam Speaker, those are the rules that apply. Mr Cornwell, in what was an extremely ill-natured and vituperative attack on the Government, was not able to point to a single instance where the information he was seeking had not been supplied. Perhaps he does have such instances. If he does, I am happy to hear about them.
Mr Cornwell should take particular note of the fact that the legitimacy of direct approaches to officials for routine information, particularly on constituency matters, is expressly considered in those guidelines. Those guidelines have been endorsed and utilised by successive governments, including the Government formed by some members opposite, as is the provision of the detail of administrative arrangements and procedures involved in the implementation of approved policies or legislation. That sort of routine request should be contrasted with matters of a sensitive nature.
I find that a contrast can quite readily be made there, and a member of Mr Cornwell's political experience, I am sure, could equally make that contrast. Where there are, for instance, requests for an expression of opinion on a government policy or policy options, or requests that would involve the use of substantial resources, or requests relating to classified or otherwise confidential information, they are clearly requests of a sensitive nature.
Direct access to the ACT Government Service by non-government members seeking routine information on constituency matters is secured by the current guidelines. If members opposite believe that they have been disadvantaged, it is quite open to them to directly approach the Minister. One member, Mr Moore, has made such an approach to me, and I have undertaken to Mr Moore, whilst adhering to these guidelines, to see whether there is any way in which I can streamline or facilitate the provision of information to members. I do that in a genuine spirit of wanting members to have available to them the sort of information to which they are entitled. I draw the line at Mr Cornwell's apparent position that, freely and without restraint, he should have available to him direct access to public servants. You simply cannot; you simply may not, except in accordance with the guidelines I have outlined.
It suits members opposite to whinge about this matter. It points to the paucity of real issues they have on their plate at the moment. The fact is that only one of them has ever raised this issue with me, and that is Mr Moore. Almost none of them - and the exception is Mr Kaine - ever bother to write a letter. On an issue of substance, I expect that members with the staff and resources that they have would commit themselves to paper. It surely is not beyond the wit and wisdom of members of this Assembly to deal with an issue in that way. I am sure that those of them who have had experience in political life, and particularly those of them, limited though they are, who have been Ministers, will be aware that in many instances the best way of getting an answer, particularly on a sensitive or complicated matter, is to write the request down, to make sure that the information provided is accurate and appropriate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .