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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 1066 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

I, too, have been a little concerned about some of the things that have been said about both Jim Service and James Service, although not directly. Certainly, the inference has been that there has been some conflict of interest there. I do not know either gentleman personally. Like most members, I have had a bit to do with both of them, more with James in the last couple of years but certainly with Jim in my first term here. I have to say that I have found both gentlemen to be very professional and very honest. I think it is unfortunate that they have been dragged through this issue. But, in saying that, I think some questions needed to be asked.

On the second issue, the most appropriate thing to happen would be for the Auditor-General to look at it, so I am quite prepared to support that. Given the information we have received today, I hope that there will be no problems. But we have said that before in this place and been surprised. I am a bit nervous because Ms Tucker is glaring at me.

Ms Tucker: I am not glaring.

MR OSBORNE: You are just staring; okay. On the first issue of whether the minister should be censured, I have to say that I am reluctant to agree, not necessarily because I agree with the actions of this government. I always find it interesting to have them reaffirm their position on openness and accountability and how they are quite happy to go along with FOI changes and things like that, but at the end of the day when push comes to shove they seem always to have this little hidey-hole of commercial-in-confidence to jump into.

Hopefully, one of the things that will come out of not just my legislation but, obviously, some of the things Mr Stanhope and Mr Moore have been saying is that finally we will be able to do something about the issue of commercial-in-confidence. I think it has been very clear over the years that it has been used as an excuse by government on both sides to hide behind.

The most glaring example for me was the hirers' contracts for Bruce Stadium that were released to the contracts committee which Mr Stanhope chaired and which I was on. I was staggered, absolutely staggered, at just how uncommercial-in-confidence, if there is such a phrase, they were. There was nothing in those documents, apart from perhaps embarrassing somebody, that I felt could be commercially sensitive for the Raiders, the Brumbies or the Cosmos, yet the fight we had to go through to get them was just disappointing. I know that Mr Stanhope has been through fights over obtaining information. I think we have all had an experience of that. I just hope that we will all learn from the Bruce Stadium issue; in particular, how the culture needs to change.

I think that the reality is that Mr Smyth has been working within that culture. As I said earlier, the government is not backward in coming forward about claiming that it is all for openness and accountability, yet we have situations like this which, more than anything else, frustrate members of the crossbench and the opposition because they have to go to such lengths to get information from the government. It is like extracting teeth and is very frustrating. The reality is that when parliaments request information governments have to provide that information. The classic example was Mr Egan, the New South Wales Treasurer, who was taken, I think, to the High Court and lost. The courts have reaffirmed the authority of a parliament to request documents.

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