Page 671 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
certificates in these circumstances also poses a significant risk to the free flow of communication if the commonwealth and other states cannot pursue it on protection.
I think that is the fundamental issue at play here. The Assembly, in supporting Mrs Dunne’s amendment—if that is what occurs, and I understand that that is the position of the minor party and the opposition—puts at jeopardy the ability for the territory to receive communications from the commonwealth and other states and territories. It is not in the territory’s interest to damage good relations with other jurisdictions.
At this time, given the state of flux of FOI legislation across Australia, particularly the commonwealth, it would not be prudent to change the protections of this provision at this time. I note that the commonwealth bill and the reforms proposed by Senator Faulkner in relation to the removal of conclusive certificates proposes the exclusion from coverage under the commonwealth FOI legislation of documents produced by a range of organisations involved in security matters. Those communications from those organisations to states and territories such as the ACT would otherwise be captured by the provisions that Mrs Dunne proposes to remove.
The commonwealth itself proposes in its reforms—the reforms Mrs Dunne accuses us of not mirroring—protections for communications from those types of commonwealth agencies which are most likely to communicate with us and provide us with information and communications which would be protected under the provisions that Mrs Dunne is proposing to abolish. That is of concern to the territory; it is a concern to the government, and we would argue that it is not in the public interest.
As I have outlined, there is a high threshold test in relation to matters of a security nature which would cause damage, but then there are other communications which would also potentially be put at risk if they are not appropriately protected. We would argue that in those circumstances there should be protections in relation to those types of communications. Mrs Dunne’s amendments go too far, and they are not in accord even with the reforms proposed by the commonwealth.
It is for those reasons that we believe this clause should be opposed. Protection should remain in place for communications between the states and the territories and the commonwealth and the ACT. This provision needs to be retained for that purpose.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (4.55): The Liberal opposition will be opposing this amendment because it is contrary to the spirit of the FOI reform that we have embarked on. After the Stanhope government put at risk the relationship between the ACT and the commonwealth during the last Assembly, it is priceless that they could come in here and say we must do everything we can to maintain our relationship with the commonwealth. If we have a bad relationship with the commonwealth, the blame for that lies fairly and squarely at the feet of the Chief Minister, who betrayed the trust of the people who communicated with him in confidence. He put a confidential document on a webpage for all to see, and in so doing he diminished himself. No other action carried out by any other member of the ACT Legislative Assembly could do more to diminish our status and diminish the reputation of the ACT in the eyes of federal public servants.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .