Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 566 ..
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
I think there is a very good summary of the concerns and the tensions and conflicts that exist between governments seeking to get on with the business of government and legislatures, parliaments, seeking to keep the Executive accountable. There is also that basic right of people to know what it is that their government is doing, particularly where it involves the expenditure of their moneys. The scrutiny of Bills committee has provided a very good summary of the arguments and that basic need for governments to be accountable.
I am very taken by some of the expressions of view that the committee has taken from some judgments, particularly the judgments of the High Court of Australia. For instance, in one judgment Chief Justice Mason said this:
The courts have consistently viewed governmental secrets differently from personal and commercial secrets.
He went on to say:
As I stated in The Commonwealth of Australia v John Fairfax ... the judiciary must view the disclosure of governmental information "through different spectacles". This involves a reversal of the onus of proof: the government must - - -
In relation to the debate that we have had in this place about the disclosure of the Bruce Stadium contract, I think this statement by the Chief Justice is a particularly pertinent statement:
... the judiciary must view the disclosure of governmental information "through different spectacles". This involves a reversal of the onus of proof: the government must prove that the public interest demands non-disclosure ...
That remains a major concern of mine in relation to the user agreements for Bruce Stadium. At no stage did the Government acknowledge that the onus of proof had been reversed and that it was for it to prove that the public interest demanded that those documents not be disclosed. I think the Government's position in relation to those user agreements is compounded by the fact that it was not responding to an order of this Assembly. The Assembly in fact had ordered that the documents be tabled in this place. The Government nevertheless sought to rely on commercial-in-confidence clauses to justify its decision not to table them pursuant to an order of the Assembly. The Executive did not respond to the demands of the legislature.
There are significant other commentaries in this paper from the Industry Commission, particularly one they prepared on competitive tendering and contracting by public sector agencies. I commend that report to the Government and to the Public Service, too, in the ACT in relation to their responsibilities to deal with, as the commission says, the tension that exists between "making information on contracting decisions public and protecting
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .