Page 979 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 31 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
that at some point the Government, when we see clearly what the Commonwealth is doing, will be bringing forward some reforms of our own to clarify these secrecy provisions. While I think that is appropriate, it is not the Government's intention to pre-empt what the Commonwealth does - we would like to see developments in this area - and it is certainly not appropriate to simply abolish the secrecy provisions, as Mr Moore would have us do. Similarly, the provisions relating to stealing with the Government - - -
Mr Humphries: Stealing from the Government.
MR CONNOLLY: Yes, stealing from the Government. Did I say "stealing for the Government"?
Mr Humphries: "With the Government".
MR CONNOLLY: Mr Humphries, thank you for correcting my grammatical slip. The provisions relating to stealing with the Government - - -
Ms Ellis: With the Government?
MR CONNOLLY: Did I say it again? It must have been the picture in the Canberra Times this morning of Senator Schacht jemmying the door. The provisions relating to stealing from the Government are provisions which tend to be found in similar Acts. While it is true to say that you could dispense with this and just generally deal with a government officer who steals from their employer in the same way as any other officer, it is significant that there are some difficulties with penalties. Strangely, the Act here says seven years, whereas the general theft provisions go for 14 years. This again is a section which most governments across Australia have. It is essential that we protect government property from theft by individuals, either working for the Government or not.
We take these matters seriously and from time to time you will see in the courts of this Territory prosecutions being brought against individuals who go out and steal or otherwise grab hold of public assets. I am sure that all members would expect that the Government should be vigilant and prosecute people who seek to steal public property. Removing this provision would in no way assist, and could, if anything, weaken our armoury to protect the public interest. Again, we are protecting the public interest here. These are not provisions that somehow are there to protect the Government or to protect public servants, as Mr Moore said in his introductory comments. These are provisions to protect the public interest, and I would suggest that members think very hard before going in with this broad brush approach. Reform of secrecy provisions is something which is on the agenda around Australia, and I expect to see some changes; but abolishing that general protection for government-held information could give rise to quite serious consequences and could be seen as almost a green light for public servants to improperly trade in or deal with information that comes across their desks.
Debate (on motion by Mr Humphries) adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 12.17 to 2.30 pm
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .