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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3802 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

regarded as sensitive. There is a whole range of areas in which governments must have the capacity to deal in confidence with business and with the community. We do not object to that. But this legislation quite appropriately and quite rightly says to governments, "If you are going to do this, at least declare where you are doing it and at least subject yourself to some rebuke around the circumstances in which you claim the privilege to keep from people information which ostensibly, on the face of it, taxpayers, the contributors of funds, have a right to know about."

The Labor Party accepts this bill. We are very happy to support the bill that Mr Osborne introduced. At this stage we are proposing to support all of the amendments that I currently have from Mr Moore. I believe that is the sum total of them. We will support those amendments and we will also support the amendments circulated by Ms Tucker. We are in the situation of supporting the bill and all amendments.

MS TUCKER (10.48): In accordance with the principle of freedom of information, the Greens have always supported wide access to government documents, including the contracts it enters into. We have had an ongoing concern about the government's use of the commercial - in - confidence claim to prevent government contracts from being publicly disclosed.

This issue is becoming more important with the increasing levels of outsourcing being undertaken by government and the subsequent contracting of private organisations to provide advice and conduct government business. The terms of these contracts are of public interest as government money is involved, and I do not think these terms should be kept secret.

This issue has been debated in the Assembly a number of times, most notably when we debated the contracts relating to Bruce Stadium. As a number of members have raised concerns about the secrecy of government contracts, we have ended up with three separate private members bills that take different but overlapping approaches to limiting the use of confidentiality clauses in government contracts.

Mr Moore's bill sets out grounds for a government agency agreeing to a confidentiality clause that can protect only trade secrets, the financial position of a party to a contract, or confidentiality arising from another source. The bill also sets out when confidentiality clauses cannot be used. It also requires a copy of contracts containing confidentiality clauses to be given to the Auditor - General within 14 days and requires the Auditor - General to give a copy of the contract to an appropriate Assembly committee. I believe that Mr Moore's bill is the most comprehensive in controlling the use of confidentiality clauses.

Mr Osborne's bill is more about making non - confidential parts of contracts publicly available but still allows confidentiality clauses in specific cases, using virtually the same criteria as Mr Moore's bill. However, there is nothing in the bill about disclosure to the Assembly of confidential contracts.

Mr Stanhope's bill takes a different approach to other bills. It allows all contracts to be disclosed to the Assembly unless a minister certifies that a contract is confidential. However, there are no criteria for when the minister can certify that a confidentiality clause can be used in a contract. A copy of confidential contracts must, however, be

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