Page 424 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 15 February 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
classified as confidential regardless of the reason for such classification. So for most intents and purposes, public disclosure is the default position, although the view of the Auditor-General might be sought in the future as to the efficacy of the exemption categories and process. Until now, those exemptions were: an unreasonable disclosure of information that was personal or about the business affairs of a person; trade secrets; information having a commercial value that could be diminished if disclosed; and any requirement imposed under law.
One of the consequences of the recently changed security environment in the developed world is that governments are taking a more cautious view on attack and disruption. Procurement contracts can be complex and extensive documents. Detailed floor plans, wiring diagrams and air circulation systems, which are available under the current act, could be an advantage to someone wishing to disrupt the operations of a hospital, police station, jail or emergency service headquarters. It is inarguable that the government has a responsibility to ensure that its commitment to public disclosure is balanced against the risk of disruption and violent attack. While the possibility of such actions may be small, though not as small as we might hope, the impact could be enormous.
In that context, introducing to the list of exemptions information that may put public safety or the security of the territory at risk makes a lot of sense. However, this bill raises another issue, that is, it gives the executive the power to describe other information that could be protected from disclosure. There is an ongoing exchange between the government and the Scrutiny of Bills Committee over the government’s tendency to give ministers wide-ranging powers through regulation. Invariably, when that issue is raised the government’s response is that the Assembly can disallow regulations. We are all aware that regulations are not subject to the same level of public awareness and scrutiny as are bills and nor are they examined as closely by the Assembly. While regulation making is convenient to the government, the changes that are effected can sometimes sneak in.
When Dan Stubbs, former director of ACTCOSS, gave his farewell speech in our reception room he raised concerns about the blurred lines of control and responsibility between ministers and public servants. In other words, he argued that some ACT public servants exercise a control over policy that ought to rest with ministers. In part, that flowed from the fact that the ACT government is a fairly recent invention. Prior to that the territory was run, in effect, by a small section of the Commonwealth public service. The situation is compounded by the fact that ministers have wide-ranging responsibilities across a number of departments and agencies, which I do not think is desirable.
I suggest that the regulation making powers, while vested in the minister, rest more with public servants than does the introduction of bills. The more that legislation is affected by regulation the more the government is led by the public service. That is not to say that the ACT public service does not include talented and effective professionals who deliver high quality services to the Canberra community; we do very well out of many of our agencies and officers. However, I think that the use of regulations must be balanced by much tighter scrutiny and, I would argue, a more serious regard for the government and the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .