Page 228 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 10 December 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This document is not a cabinet deliberation. This document is a report to cabinet. It is not protected, it is not covered and it should be tabled today. The letter goes on:
The document requested does not reveal cabinet deliberations, it provides information which Cabinet chose to consider. This Committee fails to see why the ACT should follow a more restrictive approach to public interest immunity than other jurisdictions.
Why are we restricting ourselves today? The backflip on behalf of the Greens has yet to be explained, and it must be explained. The letter goes on:
Release of the Functional Review … to the Committee is clearly in the public interest.
So what did we get back from the Chief Minister? This is the best bit. The committee got a letter back from the Chief Minister dated 21 July. He said the same thing—Westminster, cabinet confidentiality. But he then went on to say, “We’ve exempted it.” I will read the second-last paragraph of the letter from the Chief Minister.
In the case of the Strategic and Functional Review of the ACT Public Sector and Services, the Chief Executive of Chief Minister’s Department issued a conclusive certificate on 6 June 2006 under subsection 35 (3) of the Freedom of Information Act … stating that the “Functional Review is an exempt document …
This certificate still applies.
This is the man who was the Attorney-General at the time. This is the leader of the ACT Assembly. This is the man who purports to represent the law, yet he confuses the FOI Act. He confuses the fact that the committee has asked for a document under the standing orders of the Assembly, and now, apparently, according to this, the Chief Executive of the Chief Minister’s Department can exempt documents from the eyes of the Assembly. What preposterous nonsense! It is the same nonsense that he purports to put on the table today when he says, “Let’s have respect for Westminster.” This is the man who, under the Westminster system, was given the courtesy by a fellow government of a draft document, in confidence, affecting the national security of Australia, and because it suited him, he put it on his website.
Mr Seselja: Honour.
MR SMYTH: That is respect; that is honour. That is absolutely honourable! That is absolutely respecting Westminster! This is the man who talks about honour; this is the man who has no honour. For the interest of members, I note today that the now Attorney-General has put out a press release saying they are going to get rid of conclusive certificates. In that case, if you are, then your defence that says, “We won’t release the document because it’s covered by a conclusive certificate,” just dissolved. Chief Minister, release the document.
I now move to the amendment from the Greens. What we have not had from the Greens today is the explanation of their backflip and the internal inconsistency of their amendment. Let us look at it. The first part “notes the consistent refusal”. Let’s just
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .