Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 5 Hansard (5 May) . . Page.. 1355 ..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
Mr Moore referred to his position on commercial-in-confidence. I was looking at the guidelines that came out. Members may recall that draft guidelines were produced and went to Ted Quinlan's committee. The committee responded, the Government responded and we have ended up with guidelines. I am interested to know how many of these guidelines have been observed by government. I would like to quote a number of parts of the guidelines:
In handling commercial information, Government agencies must abide by a commitment to as full disclosure as possible, within the framework of existing Freedom of Information law. Principles of probity, ethical decision-making and fair dealings must be observed.
There is your overarching statement of principle. The document continues:
The obligation of the Government to account for its management of the Territory's resources means that in some circumstances commercial information in the possession of a Government agency must be disclosed. Individuals and businesses have a right to know, in advance of providing information, when this might occur.
This may not have been possible. I am not quite clear on the timeframe of some of these arrangements. The point is that these guidelines are in force. The draft guidelines have been around a lot longer, since February of this year. But there was an intention expressed by government about draft guidelines in April 1998. So for quite a long time the Government has been saying publicly that they have a commitment to these principles for commercial-in-confidence. There has been time for the Government to work with all the businesses involved in this particular motion to do with Bruce Stadium. The guidelines say:
Individuals and businesses have a right to know ...
That is right. My question is: Has that occurred? Has government talked about issues of commercial-in-confidence with these contractors? They clearly have an obligation to do so under their own guidelines. One of the key principles states:
while classifying commercially sensitive information as confidential means it will be accorded appropriate security within an agency, the classification itself does not justify non-disclosure. Specific grounds or reasons, consistent with these guidelines, are required to justify any decision not to disclose commercial information.
The Government has said today that there is particular information they are not comfortable about releasing, so they have an obligation under these principles to give the Assembly specific grounds and reasons. We look forward to seeing those. The guidelines also state:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .