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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (21 June) . . Page.. 2296 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: I am not making it. I am not making an argument for that. You can make it if you want to. I know there are some who have argued that that should be the case. Indeed, there are some local government bodies in Australia where that is the case; where there is no secrecy about executive processes, cabinet processes or the equivalents in local government. I suppose that is council meeting and other meetings, sub-council meetings if you like. Those decisions are not held in camera at all. Those processes are conducted in the open. It does happen in some places, and there is a case for that. I do not think it would work in the ACT. I also do not think we can afford to be so precious about this that we would say that 30 years retrospectively is an appropriate test.

Mr Speaker, the debate about this can rage backwards and forwards and today is going to be a busy day, so I will not enter into a lot of debate, but I will say it is my party's view that the provisions, if enacted, ought to be put on the record. People are telling us it ought to be put into practice straightaway. People are telling us that they believe that governments need to be more open and accountable. We have been told that we are not an open and accountable enough government. Well, here is the acid test. We are prepared to agree to make our decisions, of any government, available 10 years after they have been made. That seems to me to be a reasonable compromise.

Mr Stanhope says he is in favour of making them available after six years. It is open to him if he forms a government after October to move amendments to this legislation to change that to six years or some other basis.

Mr Speaker, I think we do need to enhance the openness of government practices in this territory. I have subscribed to that rhetoric, and I think I put my money where my mouth is today by backing provisions which allow cabinet decisions to be made public within the life of this self-governing parliament. It would be very easy to say, "Let's make this retrospective by 30 years," in which case people would not see them for a very long time, and I do not believe that that is appropriate. I think we need to allow people to understand the basis of decision-making. I think for that reason that 10 years, provided retrospectively, is a suitable compromise, and that is the position we will put.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (11.14): Mr Speaker, I think it is ironic that just this morning we saw the government table the Territory Records Bill 2001 to provide a comprehensive regime for the management of documents and the care of records within the ACT government service. The Executive Documents Release Bill that is currently being debated should be a part of that bill.

The issues that are raised on the Executive Documents Release Bill really should have been included in the Territory Records Bill, and perhaps to some extent they have been. It is just that the cabinet has chosen to deal with the management, care and release of records, including executive records, through the agency of the Territory Records Bill. One member of that cabinet, probably having agreed to the Territory Records Bill-I assume there is no reason for assuming that Mr Moore was not part of the cabinet that agreed to the tabling today of the Territory Records Bill-then stepped outside the cabinet room and prepared an independent executive members bill.

Mr Berry: We think.

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