Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (10 May) . . Page.. 1355 ..
MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):
see the details" are told, "Sorry, that is commercial-in-confidence. You cannot see it." We know that this is being said in those jurisdictions at the moment when those sorts of questions are asked about deals. But, if you do it in respect of the ACT, you might be forced to disclose your information. If you do not want information disclosed, do not come to the ACT; do not do a deal with the ACT.
Mr Speaker, there are a whole range of instances of the difference in approach between that which is demanded by the ACT Labor opposition and that which is practised by the state Labor governments elsewhere in this country. A good example is subsidies to businesses provided under business incentive programs. When the opposition in Queensland asked the Premier in Queensland to provide details of the direct public subsidy involved with Virgin Airlines going to Queensland, Mr Beattie said, "You are not going to know that information. That is information which we will keep to ourselves. You can go jump in the lake. If you knew what I know you would realise it was a good deal. But you are not going to know what I know because I am not going to release the information." That is the view of other Labor governments. It is also the view of the Labor Party in this place. Why do I say that? I do so because that was their view when they were in government and they were asked to disclose information of a commercial kind.
I ask members to put themselves in this position: why should we provide information of a kind which the Labor Party, when it was in government, was not prepared to supply in similar circumstances? The Labor Party was asked to supply details of its contractual arrangements with the Canberra Raiders. It said, "No, we are not going to do that. It is not in the public interest." Why is this in the public interest when that was not? Why is it okay to release information, very much against the wishes of a private party who has dealt with the ACT in good faith, and not in the public interest to release information when it was in the hands of the former Labor government? Where does it end; where is the line drawn in these matters?
Mr Berry: What was your position-
Ms Carnell: We didn't push it.
MR HUMPHRIES: No. Mr Berry made the point by way of interjection that we did not have the numbers so we could not get documents released. We would have been a very poor opposition if we had tried to seek to have the information released, any more than we would have tried to release the information available in the VITAB contract. This is a bad time to come back in, Mr Berry-
Mr Berry: I thought I'd come in and give you a brush up.
MR HUMPHRIES: The fact of the matter is that releasing that information would have been to the detriment of the ACT. (Extension of time granted.) Tabling the VITAB contract, tabling the contracts with the Raiders and tabling other commercially sensitive contracts would, apart from exposing their position and disadvantaging them vis-Ã -vis their competitors, also have the potential of opening the ACT itself to legal action for disclosure of things that were agreed between particular parties and the ACT to be commercial-in-confidence.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .