Page 2047 - Week 06 - Thursday, 7 May 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The government claims and the arbiter accepts that this document “was prepared solely for submission to cabinet and its disclosure would disclose the deliberations of cabinet”. But let us ask ourselves what would be revealed. We would discover that cabinet discussed the state of the ACT economy, the performance of its agencies and various recommendations for reform. It would be reassuring to know that they discussed those things, but it would be hardly surprising and would hardly even threaten our system of single-party cabinet government that has evolved itself into our constitutional democracy.
The government submission states:
Given the nature of the analysis and recommendations contained in the report, some proposals are being implemented over longer time frames and remain under active consideration by the Cabinet.
So if there had been a change of government at the last election, which was a distinct possibility, or if there is a change at the next election, whoever took office would presumably have access to not only the functional review but also the cabinet discussions around it in order to carry on that policy implementation. Given the Liberal Party’s position on this subject, it seems clear that they would have released it, or large parts of it. We certainly would have. This would seem to weaken the government’s claim that its release would bring the whole system of government crashing down. It is impossible to escape the suspicion that this level of hyperbole is merely a smokescreen.
Another matter which is unclear is the extent to which the arbiter tested the government’s claim that a higher level of cabinet confidentiality always applied to this report. It was seen by numerous public servants, and its details have been used by various agencies to drive their policy reforms. The government also gave a private briefing to a select audience of favoured businesspeople and union representatives to discuss the contents of the functional review. Was this fact mentioned to the arbiter? It does not seem to have been. Certainly, when you compare this level of public dissemination to the extremely strict level of confidentiality that is required to maintain legal professional privilege confidentiality over a document, the functional review fails the test miserably.
The government’s media release of 9 November 2005 uses the terms “government” and “cabinet” interchangeably. The only mention the report will be provided to cabinet is in the very last paragraph. Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave under standing order 69(j) to be given an extension of time. (Extension of time not granted.)
Standing and temporary orders—suspension
Motion (by Mr Rattenbury) put:
That so much of the standing and temporary orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Rattenbury from having an extension of time.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .