Page 3649 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 20 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS SZUTY (11.43): Madam Speaker, I do not support this amendment Bill by my colleague Mr Moore either. It might come as some surprise to members in this Assembly because I usually agree with Mr Moore on other issues. I do applaud the concept of open government, which is what I believe Mr Moore wants to achieve through his amendment Bill. However, while I support the concept, I do not support this Bill as the means of achieving it. I have taken note of the arguments that Mr Connolly and Mr Humphries have presented in terms of their opposing this Bill. Mr Connolly said in his remarks that this type of law is found in governments around Australia. No State government would have put into effect legislation such as Mr Moore is proposing. He also mentioned that the Freedom of Information Act is an appropriate check and balance in encouraging open government, and I would agree with that. He also said that the fact that we have secrecy provisions does not necessarily mean that we have closed government, and I agree with that view. Many Acts of the ACT Legislative Assembly have had secrecy provisions included in them, including the Community Advocate Act, the Health Services Act, the Legal Aid Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
Mr Connolly: And Mr Moore's epidemiology Act.
MS SZUTY: Indeed, Mr Connolly, the Epidemiological Studies (Confidentiality) Act introduced by Mr Moore some time ago. I also take on board Mr Humphries's remarks with respect to the implications of this legislation. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I will just indicate to the Assembly once again that I will not be supporting it.
MR MOORE (11.45), in reply: Since there are no further speakers, Madam Speaker, I will reply to some of the issues raised. Members seem to have misunderstood, although Mr Humphries dealt with it to some extent, that there are protections already in existence for all the things that they are concerned about. The best comparison that we can draw is a bank. The issues that are raised here about secrecy, privacy and damage that can be done apply at least equally to a bank. If we are prepared to have on our table legislation that specifically looks after ourselves but does not look after the broader community, then I think there are real questions about our attitudes. There are real questions over where we are going. It is okay, we will look after ourselves; but it is tough for you, Jack. That is what this issue is really about. If we really need legislation with these sorts of special requirements, then, really, we need to look to ourselves.
Madam Speaker, the Crimes Act covers each and every one of those issues. Mr Humphries drew attention, for example, to where a public servant steals from the Government. Stealing is stealing. It is covered under the Crimes Act. A court can deal with stealing. A court can deal with fraud. A court can deal with information, Madam Speaker. There are ways of doing it. It is not necessary to have a special Act to deal with public servants on this issue.
Mr Humphries: It is not a problem either, is it?
MR MOORE: Mr Humphries indicates that it is not a problem. If the Act were not a problem at all, then we would not have had the sorts of issues raised that he made a great deal of fuss about with reference to information in the Canberra Times. The reality was that there was a leaking of information. That issue was dealt with in what you described at the time as an entirely inappropriate way.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .