Page 797 - Week 02 - Thursday, 12 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (4.21): I think it would be fair to say that the Assembly has made more progress towards an open, transparent and accountable government in the last two sitting weeks than any other time in the history of the Assembly. The make-up of the current Assembly has led to significant procedural changes and the Greens are very proud to be responsible for what we believe to be very significant developments which will enhance democracy and good government.
The motion before the Assembly today is a Greens initiative and we are pleased that the Labor Party has adopted it. As with previous amendments to the standing orders, this amendment is designed to improve transparency in government. This is particularly so as it follows the passage of Mrs Dunne’s FOI reform bill yesterday. Clearly, this Assembly is, and will be, very different from the previous one and the Assembly and the people of Canberra will be much better informed on the government’s decision-making process and the inputs into that decision-making process.
This significant reform is modelled on the New South Wales Legislative Council reform following the Egan v Willis case. Since the introduction of the New South Wales Legislative Council standing order, the council has reasonably frequently used its power to call for papers and a range of issues have been considered by the independent arbiter there. In fact, this new Assembly standing order is actually better than the New South Wales version. It creates a clearer and, we feel, very appropriate process to resolve contentious issues over the legitimacy of government claims of executive privilege. Given the controversy over the release of the strategic and functional review, it is particularly appropriate that the Assembly develop a mechanism and continuing means to resolve such disputes.
As I said in a previous debate on a motion concerning the functional review to which this provision would now apply, as members of this Assembly we have a responsibility to do all we can to access as much information as we can to allow us to make the best contribution to policy formulation that we can. We do recognise that there will be a tension between cabinet-in-confidence material and what should properly be in the public domain. Certain material should enjoy cabinet protection such that it can be considered and debated confidentially. However, this applies to only a limited class of material and should be the exception rather than the rule.
More than a century ago Sir William Anson wrote in The Law and Custom of the Constitution that the criticism and control of the executive was a function of the legislature. He wrote:
By questions addressed to ministers of the Crown, by motions for papers on matters of present interest, the members of either House can keep a check on current business and obtain explanation of its conduct, so far as it is not inconsistent with the public advantage.
The importance, subject to certain privileges, of the ability of the legislature to access information and scrutinise the activities of the executive cannot be overstated. It is our responsibility as members not only to pass laws for the peace, order and good
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .