Page 2860 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
had to make about the structure and cost of services in the community. There was a need for consideration of these matters to be undertaken in an environment that allowed for an impartial examination of the issues and for decisions to be framed accordingly.
Whilst the report was prepared solely for cabinet, the government was public in its intent to conduct such a review. A joint media release by the former Chief Minister and the former Treasurer on 9 November 2005 detailed the terms of reference for the review. The 2006-07 budget papers detail the decisions of cabinet. However, the report embodies in itself the deliberations of the cabinet and, in the words of Sir Laurence Street, falls “well within the field of legitimate Cabinet immunity”. Sir Laurence recognises that the document addresses “topics which raise considerations at the very heart of the functioning of executive government, and with that, collective ministerial responsibility”.
Having identified the areas of the public service and of service delivery to target, we knew that some proposals would have a significant effect on the people of Canberra. The government embarked on an extensive consultation process and, following this consultation, we reviewed a number of the proposals cabinet put forward and we changed our approach.
We have the most open legislative framework for access to cabinet documents of any state or territory in Australia. Our Territory Records Act makes cabinet papers available to the public after just 10 years. The standard in the commonwealth has recently been reduced from 30 to 20. Under the ACT’s regime, the functional review will become publicly available in five years time, in 2016. If this was part of the commonwealth cabinet process, these papers would not become public until 2026.
The validity of the government’s continuing claim of executive privilege over this document has been tested in the Assembly on a number of occasions and in 2009 the Assembly itself agreed to the process for the appointment of an independent reviewer. Indeed, the establishment of an independent arbitration process for claims of privilege by the executive forms a key reform in the parliamentary agreement. And I welcome this reform. Having an independent, arms-length process for settling disputes is a useful enhancement of our system of responsible government.
The functional review is so far the only document to have been submitted to this independent review process, and the independent reviewer, the Hon Sir Laurence Street, concluded clearly that the review validly was, and should remain, a protected document.
Sir Laurence Street is, of course, one of Australia’s most distinguished jurists and is regarded as one of Australia’s leading practitioners in mediation and dispute resolution. As you are aware, Sir Laurence was appointed by the Assembly, not by this government, to arbitrate the dispute between the executive and the Assembly over the status of this document. I understand he has undertaken similar reviews for the New South Wales parliament. The government itself agreed to abide by the arbitration process and that it would be conducted by the arbiter appointed by the Assembly. No relevant additional circumstances or information have arisen since the independent
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video