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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 5 Hansard (8 May) . . Page.. 1785 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

Auditor-General found that the Public Access to Government Contracts Act was not effective and was not being administered effectively. In summary, the Auditor-General found that this act was unclear in a number of important respects, there were no compliance provisions in the act, not all contracts with confidentiality clauses were given to the Auditor-General, and most of the contracts submitted did not comply with the act.

The Auditor-General was very critical of the lack of compliance across ACT government agencies with respect to the Public Access to Government Contracts Act. He suggested a number of amendments to improve this situation. These included agencies certifying their compliance, that agencies seek legal advice about confidentiality clauses, that agencies publish a list of all contracts that they have entered into, that the University of Canberra be brought within the coverage of the act, that the meaning of "kinds of confidential information"be clarified, and that the period for which contracts should be available should be established.

Mr Speaker, some of the Auditor-General's suggestions were picked up by the Assembly in November 2002, such as agencies certifying compliance and defining a period for which contracts should be made available, but some of the suggestions have not been picked up, such as bringing the University of Canberra and the university college into the legislative regime and defining various kinds of information that should be kept confidential. Therefore, I think that it is appropriate to ask: why have these matters not been incorporated into this amendment bill?

I think that some of the interest surrounding this bill as we progress the debate will be in the position of the University of Canberra, given that there are anomalies in several acts that give it coverage and do not give it coverage. One of the big issues that perhaps we need to look at when the Auditor-General finishes his inquiry into the University of Canberra is as to what really is its position and where it should sit.

A relatively minor matter has been raised by this bill concerning contracts that are not in an electronic format. The bill notes that there may be instances where a notifiable contract is not in an electronic form. This provision would appear to be extraordinary, possibly except for contracts that have been in place for some years. We need to know what examples there are of such contracts, how many there are, and whether this provision is an unnecessary inclusion in the bill. Should there be a requirement in any event for any non-electronic contracts to be converted to electronic contracts, such that they can be placed on the website?

Mr Speaker, there are several other issues, particularly defining what are "kinds of confidential information". The Auditor-General is most concerned about the lack of a definition of the kinds of information that could be considered to be confidential. This concern arose for two reasons. First, it appears to the auditor that some information that was claimed to be confidential in a number of contracts may not have been confidential under the act. Secondly, as the model confidentiality clause requires that the kinds of information to be kept confidential be listed in a contract, the auditor suggested that the meaning of the term "kinds of confidential information"be therefore clarified. It does not appear that the government has responded to the concerns raised by the auditor about the need to clarify this fundamental provision of the legislation.

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