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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3803 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

given to the Auditor - General, who must give a report to the Assembly every six months on contracts received.

A round table meeting was held some weeks ago to resolve how to deal with the three bills. I was not at the meeting, but my adviser attended. My understanding was that the conclusion reached was that the Moore and Osborne bills should be amalgamated and that Mr Moore and Mr Osborne work on how to do this.

The government had concerns about some of the detail in the two bills, particularly the threshold for the disclosure of contracts, and said it would get back to other members with some proposals for dealing with these concerns. I was therefore concerned to find out on Tuesday that Mr Osborne's bill was listed for debate today and that I had not been given any indication of how this reconciled with the outcome of the round table discussion.

Only late Tuesday did I find out that Mr Moore was intending to move amendments to Mr Osborne's bill to incorporate the substance of his earlier bill. My office did not receive a copy of those amendments until mid - morning Wednesday. It is very annoying that amendments to bills are being rushed through so quickly this week without much time for scrutiny.

I have looked through Mr Moore's amendments, and they appear to be a fairly accurate translation of the substance of his bill into Mr Osborne's bill, with one exception which I will mention in the detail stage. I think this amended bill will provide better access to government contracts, so I will support Mr Osborne's bill and Mr Moore's amendments. I will, however, be moving a further amendment in the detail stage.

MR KAINE (10.52): I think Ms Tucker's outlining of events that have led to this morning is a pretty accurate one. It is significant that there has long been a concern in this place about the use of commercial - in - confidence as a reason for not informing the Assembly of what is being done. I am aware that the bill before us, together with the amendments that have been agreed to by at least some of the players, is an attempt to rectify that.

As Ms Tucker said, we originally had three bills, and today we have one, which is a bit of an improvement. We at least do not have to thrash our way through debate on the merits of three different bills to arrive at a conclusion. That work has been done outside this place, and that is commendable. Like Ms Tucker, I only say amendments to Mr Osborne's bill earlier this week. I have not had time to go through all of the ramifications of the commercial - in - confidence classification and its use over an extended period of time to allow me to make up my mind whether this bill is a complete solution to the problem or whether it is not.

However, I am prepared to support the bill and then to observe over the next year or so whether there continue to be consistent and persistent concerns about the continuing use of the commercial - in - confidence classification to avoid providing information to this place. This may be a solution; it may not. I do not know yet, but I am prepared to give it a try, and we can review it in a few months time if necessary.

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