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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4502 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

We have seen examples in this place where members have been told something was commercial-in-confidence, only to see the information appear in the department's annual report. How can a deal which sees a government hand over public money or public land or forgo the collection of revenue be a secret? The money or the asset does not belong to the government; it belongs to the people. I can see a reason to protect the integrity of a tender process, but I can see no reason at all not to detail the process once the tender has been won. I can see a reason to protect trade secrets. I cannot see a reason to hide the amount of public money a government has spent to entice an interstate business to set up in the Territory.

I believe that the document I tabled in question time today is a classic example of an abuse of the tag "commercial-in-confidence". A cynic might say that the results of a survey like this could be of value to a government that is soon to seek re-election, but at the very least it raises the question of how a government survey of constituents' aspirations can be confidential. This is precisely the reason why I believe this whole area needs to have the cleaners put through it. The use of public money should be public. It is as simple as that, and no amount of government rhetoric will convince me it is so complex.

Early in 1995 I decided that one way I could make a useful contribution to this place was to look at the Freedom of Information Act and see how it might be improved. As you heard Mr Moore say, Mr Speaker, I think I used the term "government in the sunshine". I wanted to see how it might be broadened to include many of the areas which are currently hidden from public view. This Bill goes to the heart of some of the things I have been saying about the need to reform the way in which this Assembly does its business. For the record, Mr Speaker, unlike some aspirants for the next election, I have never said that the system here did not work. I have said it could be improved. I had hoped that this Bill would be one plank in that improvement, and I am confident that some of the other reforms I intend to propose will do that.

When my office first began to look at this Bill we modelled it on some of the Freedom of Information Acts at work in other parts of the world. Most notably, we looked at the United States "government in the sunshine" Bill and the New Zealand Freedom of Information Act. Mr Speaker, believe it or not, there are some parts of the world that have a much more open attitude to public access to information than we have in Australia. And guess what, Mr Speaker? Governments still seem to function there. The world has not come to an end and people have not stopped doing business in either New Zealand or the US just because the public has better access to government information.

My sentiment was that the Bill would be ruled by a principle of availability; that is, unless there was an absolutely compelling reason, government information should be exposed to the sunlight of public scrutiny. The principle as outlined in this Bill, I believe, falls short of what I was intending and, as I said, that is one of a number of reasons why I will not be attempting to force this Bill through this Assembly. I am prepared to wait and get this Bill right. However, I am pleased - it is a small victory - to have it agreed to in principle.

Mr Speaker, I am disappointed, however, with the end result. I first discussed this Bill with Parliamentary Counsel in February 1996. They seemed unimpressed, and the Attorney-General's Department was even more dismissive, quite appallingly. My staff met with Parliamentary Counsel a few times before Easter 1996 and shortly afterwards

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