Page 840 - Week 03 - Thursday, 14 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the document or information contained in the document by Treasury officials was confirmed by advice from the Clerk of the Assembly that he had been contacted on 11 November last year to comment on a particular recommendation contained in the draft report of the committee. It should be noted that the report of the committee was not tabled in the Assembly until 23 November 1993, some two weeks later. Members responded indicating that they had had no knowledge of the matter. The Treasurer responded indicating that she was not aware of how documents of that kind would have come into the hands of any of her officers. She also indicated that she viewed the disclosure of such information in that fashion with great concern - those are her words.
The committee had little information to go on in those circumstances and it found a number of things: Firstly, that the Treasury officers did have knowledge at least of a draft document of the Estimates Committee; secondly, that a contempt had been committed, both by those who made those findings or recommendations available to Treasury officers or the personal staff of the Treasurer and by the Treasury officials who received or used that information, although the committee is careful to point out that this is, in a sense, a secondary contempt rather than a primary contempt. The chief responsibility for the matter rests on the shoulders of those who actually made the information available.
The committee believes that there is potential damage in two particular heads that might be done to the committee process by reason of that kind of information becoming available. Firstly, there is the danger to the committee system as a whole, and we quote from a 1985 House of Commons committee report on issues of this kind, which said:
... if Members of committees are shown to be incapable of treating their proceedings as confidential, those who give evidence in confidence to select committees ... might become more reluctant to do so.
The second head of damage was that damage done by undermining the trust and goodwill among members of committees.
Madam Speaker, the Administration and Procedures Committee makes four recommendations to the Assembly. In doing so, we gave serious consideration to calling the Under Treasurer and particular Treasury officials to appear before the committee and to explain how these issues may have arisen. The committee felt that it had a right to obtain this information; but, notwithstanding that, it felt that this had to be balanced against the possibility that the committee's inquiry could be viewed as a witch-hunt against officers who, after all, had committed a secondary contempt rather than a primary contempt, and that if such a witch-hunt could be perceived to have occurred it could damage careers in the public service. It decided, in those circumstances, not to call officers of the Treasury before it.
The four recommendations are: Firstly, that the Treasurer present a report to the Assembly outlining the procedures and practice she has put in place in the Treasury to ensure that documents of this kind are not in future made available to officers. Secondly, it was noted that the ACT Government handbook on participation in parliamentary and other inquiries peculiarly makes no reference to the confidentiality of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .