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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (2 March) . . Page.. 550 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

about greater public confidence in the way in which the ACT Government and its agencies agree to confidentiality clauses in contracts.

Jim Hacker once asked Sir Humphrey in Yes, Minister about open government. Sir Humphrey replied, "You can have openness, or government, but not both". That may be the view of the quintessential bureaucrat, but I do not agree. We can have both if we are careful to balance the issues in a responsible way. I believe that this is what my legislation does today.

The new confidentiality process that I am proposing will allow Assembly oversight of confidentiality clauses. If such a system had already been in place we could have avoided the controversy that has recently surrounded the ACT sporting codes agreements. We need a system to lift the perceived secrecy surrounding such contracts. I believe that confidentiality clauses, although rare, are a proper part of some government contracts. Unfortunately, their use has become the subject of considerable public suspicion. This Bill will go a long way towards ensuring that government agencies act properly and maintain the confidence of the public.

I must say that government is already conducted in a very open way here in the ACT. There is no doubt about that. In fact, I believe that the current law in the ACT, and the current Government, set a very high standard of openness - the highest standard ever set in Australia. I would like to take credit because I have had a lot to do with achieving this over the last decade. But we do need to improve the system in this case, and this proposed legislation will do exactly that. It will further improve what is already the most transparent system in Australia.

I have always worked hard to ensure that processes of government are open and accountable, and I will continue to do this. The legislation continues the approach that I have operated under for the past 11 years. My track record in the Assembly in securing related reforms includes amendments to the Subordinate Laws Act in 1993, which gave the Assembly power to amend many government instruments; sponsoring the adoption of the Statutory Appointments Act 1994, which established the non-political process for making appointments to government positions; and sponsoring the adoption of the Administration (Interstate Agreements) Act 1997, which required Ministers to inform the Assembly about the implications of agreements made at ministerial councils.

This Bill will also implement policy that I campaigned on at the last ACT election. One of the action agendas in the election platform of the Moore Independents in 1998 was to "ensure that all legislation and administrative policy works from a presumption of openness, with confidentiality to be used only where specifically justified, and within a justifiable time limit". It also sought to "review the overuse by government of the 'commercial-in-confidence' status to conceal details of business dealings".

As an aside, I know that Mr Stanhope, in a press release in the last couple of days, has indicated that in some ways my piece of legislation is a stunt. In fact, I have been working on this for some time, and clearly from before the last election. When I listened to Mr Stanhope's speech I wondered why he would accuse me of doing a stunt on this particular issue. The reality is that he has put up a piece of legislation that is somewhat different from what I have done. Mr Osborne has indicated that he also will be putting

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