Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 2 Hansard (29 February) . . Page.. 478 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I accept that we should reconsider the process, but not halfway through a particular process. We should do it in general terms, and we should make it prospective, not retrospective. We are very much playing with fire. Perhaps the Government will not be sued. Perhaps there will be no particular problem that arises out of this matter. Who knows? But maybe there will be. Maybe there will be some problem arising out of that, and then we are in a bit of trouble. I ask members of the Assembly to consider that.

Mr Moore, I think, or it might have been Ms Follett, made the comment about the thing being out in the community. They asked why this information should not be out in the community. First of all, let me say that I do not think most members of the community are actually interested; but there are certain members of the community who will be very interested in it. They would be members of the relevant unions who are involved in the process and obviously have to be involved in the process of implementation. Also, of course, other commercial parties who are interested in this process will be very interested in these documents, and you can be sure that they will be knocking on the door of the Assembly.

Mr Moore: All information technology people in small business in Canberra are interested in it, of course.

MR HUMPHRIES: Indeed, they are all interested, and they will all be getting copies of this document when it is tabled and seeing what they can use of it which is of value. They will be pretty interested to see what their competitors in some cases have contributed to this process - a most unfortunate precedent to be setting.

The final comment I make about this is that if those opposite in particular are so strongly of the view that documents of this kind ought to be out in the open, documents which are a commercial negotiation of some kind with the Government, indeed Cabinet documents, let them table the VITAB contract, which we have not to this day seen.

Mr Wood: We can throw that argument straight back at you.

MR HUMPHRIES: We are going to table those packages this afternoon, Mr Wood. That argument does not hold any water. You are the ones who say that we should open up commercial-in-confidence documents. That was the sole argument you used against the tabling of the VITAB contract. Let us see the VITAB contract here this afternoon. Let us see it, if you are fair dinkum about this.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Moore, where exactly do we stand with your motion?

MR MOORE (12.20): At the moment, Mr Speaker, the motion is there and I have circulated an amendment that has not yet been moved or spoken to.

MR SPEAKER: Are you going to move that now?

MR MOORE: I was just listening to the debate, Mr Speaker, and that is what I am giving consideration to. Having now given consideration to that, I will move the amendment circulated in my name and then explain what it is. I move:

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .