Page 669 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
government is seeking to protect to be made available. Of her interviews with her interviewees, she said that many of her interviewees:
Encountered reluctance to write down “wild ideas” before testing them at the political level, because the political cost of defending them if they turned out to be flawed was too high. The reason why this defensive behaviour is now widespread is simple: people do not perceive the protection provided by the relevant grounds in the Act as reliable or effective. Time and again, people comment informally that a good public servant will not write anything down that could not be released under the OIA (at least in terms of these withholding grounds). While it is possible that the withholding grounds might apply (and some argue that in general they do eventually protect what needs to be protected), most people consider the arguments too difficult and time-consuming to make.
Solomon goes on to say:
“Anodyne” information, as White describes it, is not the kind of information that Ministers want or need from their officials. If Ministers are to be “accountable to the Crown, the Parliament, and ultimately the electorate”, they must know what is happening within their particular areas of ministerial responsibility. This is not just about accountability: it is about better government that comes through accountability. It is also important that Ministers be briefed to the point where they will not, through ignorance, give misleading information to Parliament, particularly during question time or during the conduct of its estimates committees.
In conclusion, here is another quote from Solomon which I think is particularly relevant in this debate:
… a Minister cannot be responsible for his portfolio if he or she does not know what is happening within his or her department. Ministers need to be briefed about what their departments are doing, what problems exist and how they are being dealt with. Unless they know, democratic accountability is a sham. Ignorance should not be an option if government is to operate responsibly.
That is what this debate is about. I think Solomon and White outline the arguments strongly and coherently as to what is at play in permitting the Freedom of Information Act to apply to this very limited number of documents.
I am disappointed that the Greens and the Liberals have chosen to ignore these quite considered and reasoned arguments. Indeed, they have not put up any compelling argument as to why those assertions, as outlined in the Solomon review, do not apply here in the ACT.
The changes that are proposed are to a very limited range of documents—incoming government briefs, briefs for estimates and annual reports hearings, and briefs for question time. And those three classes of documents are fundamental if ministers are to properly account to the parliament and its committees for their actions and the work that they are entrusted to do. Equally, they are fundamentally important if the ministers are to properly do their job as ministers and ensure that their portfolios are
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .