Page 2059 - Week 06 - Thursday, 7 May 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This is not the case. Mr Rattenbury went to the nub of it: in a sense, we cannot know whether that will ever happen because Jon Stanhope will not release the document. But if he did release the document, I lay you really good odds, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the system of cabinet government would not fall over in this place. Mr Rattenbury referred to the principles enshrined in the New Zealand cabinet manual, and it was interesting to note that, in her review of access to information, Professor Irene Moss referred to these matters and to the changes that had been undertaken in New Zealand and how, in fact, after these changes had been made, the world did not come to an end; the sky did not fall.
Jon Stanhope has become a dinosaur. The person who was going to be evolving, changing and creating a new ACT, a more up-to-date ACT, has become a dinosaur and a defender of the old and tired ways. In the same way we saw the Attorney-General, in his so-called reform of freedom of information at the end of last year, creating a situation where whole classes of documents would not be available. One of the processes involved in that would be effectively running them through the cabinet system and saying that they were cabinet documents.
This is what we have had. We have another set of evidence that the Stanhope government is not interested in reform and is not interested in bringing the ACT’s system of government into the 21st century, because it wants to hide behind privilege. In a sense, it does not matter what the independent arbiter says; it is about the mindset and the intent of the government, and at any time this government can waive privilege. I contend, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it has already waived privilege in relation to the fact sheet, which I seek leave to table.
Leave granted.
MRS DUNNE: I table the following paper:
Budget 2006-2007—Fact Sheet #F1: Functional Review.
I make it perfectly clear that that fact sheet effectively waives privilege and, if there was any doubt about it, and if Jon Stanhope was a real reformer, and if Simon Corbell was interested in freedom of information, they would waive their privilege. Even if Sir Laurence Street said that they do not have to, they can. At any moment they can waive the privilege if they intended to, if they were interested in serving the people who pay their salaries.
Mr Corbell: Privilege is there for a reason.
MRS DUNNE: And you can waive it any time you like.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (11.28): It is an interesting debating point from the Chief Minister that the arbiter made a decision and therefore we all have to abide by it. I am aware that a coroner’s inquiry into bushfires made some decisions; she was the arbiter on the day, but apparently we do not have to abide by that. This is the inconsistency of Jon Stanhope. “When it suits me it’s a good thing; when it doesn’t suit me it’s a bad thing.” That is the problem with the arguments that the Chief Minister makes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .