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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 26 August 2004) . . Page.. 4404 ..

person’s wrongdoing. This power does not rule out prosecution if other evidence is available. However, it is a consideration. I am happy that, in this case, the rights are protected and the public interest is covered, but it is a complex area to balance.

The suggestion concerning sensitive information has been picked up in the bill today and is an expansion of section 19, which lists the situations in which the Auditor-General can decide that it would not be in the public interest to include particular information in a report for the Legislative Assembly. Instead, the Auditor-General includes the information in separate reports to the public accounts committee.

This set of amendments to section 19 also moves the provision currently at section 19 (1) (b) that includes in the list of sensitive information that it is not in the public interest to disclose information that would disclose a deliberation of the executive, and a certificate under subsection (2) is in force in relation to the information. This certificate is a certificate issued by the Chief Minister stating that in the Chief Minister’s opinion the inclusion of particular information in a report for the Legislative Assembly would disclose a deliberation or decision of the executive that would be contrary to the public interest.

The amendment in today’s bill, in removing subsections 19 (1) (b) and 19 (2) from the list of sensitive information and giving them their own section, proposed new section 19A, highlights this power of the Chief Minister to decide whether the release of deliberations of the executive are in the public interest. This power has always been there and it is true that it has not been a problem, even through the Bruce Stadium inquiry, which was surrounded by calls for the Chief Minister to go.

The Chief Minister did not try to invoke a certificate claiming that disclosing the relevant cabinet documents would not be in the public interest. In that sense, it was a reassuring experience. There is also the back-up that the Chief Minister’s decision would be legally challengeable. Again, this is an interesting and important balance in independence.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (9.01), in reply: This legislation is consistent with the government’s desire to be an open and accountable government and with open and accountable governance, and the amendments will ensure that the Auditor-General has sufficient powers to carry out his or her duties effectively.

As I said in my introductory speech and as has been indicated by members tonight, these amendments are based on the suggestions put forward by the former Auditor-General, Mr John Parkinson. The Auditor-General’s Office has indicated its strong and continuing support for the bill.

Following comments by the scrutiny of bills committee, I will be proposing a number of amendments during the detail stage of the debate on the bill. The amendments will clarify the effect of the bill and ensure that the bill operates as intended.

I am pleased to receive the support of members for this legislation and I seek continuing support to ensure that the Auditor-General has the necessary powers to continue to provide accurate, complete and useful information about the management of public sector resources.

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