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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (2 March) . . Page.. 551 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

up a piece of legislation, which I also understand is somewhat different. I think we need to make sure that we can work together to get the best possible legislation for the people of the ACT and make sure that it is comprehensive enough. I believe, certainly compared to Mr Stanhope's legislation, that you will see that this is much more comprehensive.

The reason why, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, is that this legislation is consistent with government guidelines and, indeed, draws on the current ACT Government's "Guidelines for the Treatment of Commercial Information". This is important because those guidelines were finalised after a long consultation process with the business community, and I must say that I was very pleased to see that there was general agreement between business representatives and government officials that there was no justifiable alternative to an open set of principles.

I should also point out that this legislation is not retrospective. Existing contracts will not be altered as it would be inappropriate to make the Bill retrospective. I must say that I have also seen what I believe is quite inappropriate exposure by this Assembly and by its committees of contracts that were signed in good faith. I am quite critical of that and I will remain critical. As much as I have wanted to see change, I think the notion of doing it retrospectively is appalling and is a misuse of Assembly committees. We have to look very carefully at the way our Assembly committees are being used. The Bill is also carefully balanced so that on those rare occasions where there is a legitimate case for confidentiality the matter can be handled sensibly.

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I will briefly outline the features of the Bill. The legislation is based on the approach of a light hand but a strong oversight. The subjects of the Bill are the government agencies who might be asked by a business to agree to an element of confidentiality in a contract. They will be required to follow a process set out in this legislation. The other parties to the negotiations will have a strong interest in ensuring the process is followed because the clause will not be legally effective if there is a breach of the process. That is where the legislation gets its teeth.

Briefly, agencies will first need to remind other parties to a contract that this legislation exists and that it must be followed. The Bill will require government agencies to link the request for confidentiality to a list of grounds which are acceptable. They will also need to consider a list of negative factors which would be grounds for refusing to agree to confidentiality. These lists, set out in the Bill, are broad and general, and will leave considerable scope for discretion.

The purpose of the Bill is not to unreasonably constrain the legitimate use of confidentiality, but rather to place the decision-makers in a position of knowing that their judgment will be reviewed by independent public officials. Indeed, they will be conveyed to a committee of the Assembly. Transparency, not complicated rules, is the way that this Bill will improve the practices of government agencies.

If a confidentiality clause is judged to be justified, the grounds for doing so must be stated in the contract. The contract and the grounds for confidentiality must then be recorded on a register kept by the Auditor-General. Finally, the Auditor-General must notify an Assembly committee of each confidentiality clause on the register. The Bill provides for this oversight committee to be nominated by the Speaker so that changes in

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