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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4499 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Another issue that needs to be addressed in reviewing the FOI Act is ensuring that government departments keep good records. Unfortunately, the FOI Act can be a disincentive for keeping files and records in the bureaucracy so that any embarrassing information is not disclosed at some future time. Anyone who has worked in the public service would know that often documents are misplaced and do not end up on the right files, and that sometimes unofficial files are kept by individual officers to avoid putting sensitive information on the official file. The increasing use of computers for keeping information also makes it easy for sensitive information to be deleted at the press of a button.

The big issue in the FOI Act, however, is the question of which types of documents should be exempt from the freedom of information process. Mr Osborne's Bill does not really address this issue in a comprehensive way. The major concern to me is the use by the ACT Government of the commercial-in-confidence tag as a means of avoiding accountability on what deals are being done with private companies, and on how and where public money is spent - a problem that is likely to worsen with the increasing trend towards outsourcing. Taxpayers and voters are entitled to know what their government is doing, and the ACT Greens believe that if the private sector wants government business it has to realise that the rules will be different. We believe that the full details of any contracts undertaken by government agencies should be made public, unless there are exceptional circumstances, in which case they should be at least released to Assembly members on a confidential basis. All governments around Australia, Labor and Liberal, have been hiding for too long behind commercial-in-confidence to avoid scrutiny and accountability, which is seriously undermining the public interest and parliamentary democracy.

I have already been denied access to the hedging contract between ACTEW and Yallourn Energy. The public has also been denied access to information on contracts relating to the national electricity market in the electricity legislation recently passed. Other instances where commercial-in-confidence has arisen include during Estimates Committee hearings in relation to assistance to business, in relation to information technology outsourcing, and in debate about VMO contracts. The Greens have already challenged commercial-in-confidence provisions in the Assembly. When the Health and Community Service Board and the Tourism and Events Corporation were established we required the Government to table details of commercial ventures in the Assembly; but we do not want this to continue on an ad hoc basis, and basic principles need to be established for future cases.

In other countries legislation requires governments to release, on request, the whole of agreements they execute, and in Australia there is a growing momentum to tackle the issue. At present the Australasian Council of Auditors-General is conducting an inquiry into commercial confidentiality and the public interest. The Western Australian Report of the Commission on Government, which was established after the WA Inc. scandal, has made a strong recommendation on this issue. It recommended that, as a precondition for doing business with government, tenderers must be prepared for the details of any contract to be made public. Even the WA Chamber of Commerce said in the inquiry that business must expect that its relationships with government will often be more public,

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