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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (10 May) . . Page.. 1356 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I ask members to put their bullshit filters up for just a moment and ask themselves why is it that this mob over here constantly relied on commercial-in-confidence when they were in government and now say, "It does not matter; commercial-in-confidence should be no protection; put the documents on the table." Why? What is the difference; what is the material difference between these two positions? There simply is not any.

The government realises that every time it keeps a document back it exposes itself to motions like this on the floor of the Assembly. We have to weigh very carefully the basis on which to refuse to supply the information. In some ways being sued is actually not a particularly serious consequence. In one sense, being sued would be a welcome relief because at least it would prove to people that we are serious and we mean it when we say that we suffer a financial loss, potentially, because of a breach of a contract by tabling documents which might be commercial-in-confidence. At least we would prove the point that there is a public interest we are protecting by refusing to disclose these documents.

In this case the issue on the other side of the coin has to be put: where is the public interest in this disclosure? What advantage does the ACT community obtain by putting, for example, the statement of claim which has been made by another company-by an independent third party, ITC-against its insurance company? Where is the public interest?

Mr Stanhope wants to know because he has been told he cannot have the document. He wants to know because he sees it is an advantage to give the government a kick in the teeth. He can run around saying, "Secretive government. What have they got to hide? Give us the documents." Another day's headlines about Bruce Stadium-that is his interest in the matter. But what is the public interest in disclosing that? There is a public disadvantage, there is a public disbenefit, as the Chief Minister has explained. There is certainly a disadvantage to ITC, which desperately does not want to have that information on the table for reasons which relate only to its own commercial interest.

Some of you might imagine that we have put ITC up to this, that we have talked to them and said, "Look, please say that you do not want this information disclosed so we do not have to put it on the table." It is not in our interests to have the information not disclosed. The information not being disclosed opens us up to a motion like the one before us today and hurts the government politically very badly. It is not in our interest to have it kept in the hands of ITC at any point in time, but it is very much to the disadvantage of ITC and, in turn, every other company that might deal with the ACT in the future. That is the public disbenefit from disclosure.

If members could have some inkling that there is a disbenefit to the public, then the question becomes: what is the offsetting public benefit in having it disclosed? This question has not been answered by Mr Stanhope or by Mr Quinlan in this debate. What advantage does the public of the ACT obtain by looking at the statement of claim by the International Touring Co against X insurance company?

Mr Berry: It is only at a reconciliation stage.

MR HUMPHRIES: But you do not want just a reconciliation; you want that information as well-it is in paragraph (iv). How does looking at the insurance policy itself advance the situation? Where is the public benefit?

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