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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (18 February) . . Page.. 70 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Mr Speaker, it seems to me that a situation which opens up information in the public interest but also provides the ability for the Attorney-General and the Ombudsman to act in a reasonable way is important. At first glance, in one small section of this Bill, it may appear that Mr Humphries is trying to limit the disclosure of the Ombudsman. But I do not believe that to be the case. It gives the power to decline to act on disclosures where the matter is frivolous or vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance, has been adequately dealt with by the receiving agency or another agency, or is an attempt to reopen a matter already dealt with by a court or a tribunal. That appears at face value to be narrowing disclosure; but it seems to me, having thought this through carefully, that, if the Ombudsman is dealing constantly with such vexatious issues, then he cannot put the time and the resources into dealing with new and important issues that people raise with him.

It seems to me, Mr Speaker, that this Bill acts to correct those sorts of problems. I am sure that all members of this Assembly, perhaps with the exception of a couple of very new members, would be very conscious of the number of people who become obsessive about particular issues, who are vexatious about a range of issues and who are particularly difficult to deal with. If new members have not met them yet, they will in the not too distant future.

Mr Wood: Like who?

MR MOORE: I hear an interjection from Mr Wood, "Like who?". I do not think members here need to discuss names. As an aside, I might say that often these people have a very important issue and, had it been dealt with appropriately in the first place, there would not have been the development of obsessiveness about the issue. To me, that is often the saddest part about dealing with people when I can no longer afford the time to continue such debates. Mr Speaker, I think that generally the Public Interest Disclosure (Amendment) Bill is a positive step forward, and I too am happy to be supporting it.

MR WHITECROSS (Leader of the Opposition) (5.10): Further to Mr Berry's erudite address on the subject, can I briefly say that the Opposition is particularly happy about these amendments. I want to highlight a couple of things. One is the inclusion of the Auditor-General as a proper authority to investigate these complaints. Given that the kinds of complaints we are talking about deal with issues of corruption, illegal or improper conduct, or substantial waste of resources, it is appropriate in many cases that the Auditor-General be the person who receives that complaint and investigates that complaint, because it is very much within the purview of the kinds of things the Auditor-General does.

Also, Mr Speaker, the amendments to the terminology to ensure that executive employees employed under the Public Sector Management Act are fully covered within the terms of the Act are appropriate. They are obviously very significant employees in the overall scheme of operation of the Public Service and it is essential that they be fully covered by the scope of the Act. The new definition of "public official", I think, rectifies a potential difficulty that existed in the past.

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