I am a Member of this committee so my name is attached to the front page. It shows I am a Member of it. I would like to point out that it's not the job of a committee to be the cheering section or the heckling section. Our job is to review the bill and try to make it as good as we can. We didn't originate the bill. The government proposes it, and the Assembly disposes of it. Our report, hopefully, will help the Assembly to decide what they want to do with it.
It seems to me that Mr. Kakfwi is right that when we met and had several presentations on this act we had some concerns. His department's officials responded very quickly. Even before discussing the issue with his officials, Mr. Kakfwi agreed, just on the surface, that we should avoid, for example, trying to define aboriginal government. You could see right away that we shouldn't be trying to define what aboriginal government is. He knew it right off and agreed to make that kind of change. There were several other ones, such as the exclusion of the Assembly, the ridiculous override of 25 years. He came in with a reasonable proposal. It wasn't quite as short as what we had proposed, but it was acceptable. It was reasonable.
So although you don't have a report that is standing up, yelling and screaming that this is the best thing since sliced bread, you are always going to have problems with sectors of the public that figure you haven't gone far enough. That is always going to happen.
So, when you look at this act, you are going to find various people who will find fault with it because of what it doesn't do. But it's clear to me that the sentiment that's existed within the last eight years is still there. People feel that we should have an open government and the way to do that is to do the best you can with providing people with access.
So even though this may not be the perfect thing, it is something that is a response to what we have heard from the public, and the changes that are in here reflect what the public has told us. If the public out there wanted more, then we obviously haven't heard about it. The opportunity was given. It was well advertised, well publicized and the changes which are in here reflect the concerns of those people who saw fit and found time to bring their concerns to the committee.
So I am not one of those people who is going to get up and say this is a wonderful act, it's the best in the western world. This basically is the kind of act that you will find in other jurisdictions, it is not that much different. It's not a unique piece of legislation that sets the path for everybody else. It's a piece of legislation that really fits into the mould that already exists that tries to achieve the balance between the peoples' right to know and peoples' right to have privacy. It is the kind of a balance that is very difficult to achieve. But I believe that this is probably as well as we can do at this time with this kind of legislation. The report reflects that, so I'm quite happy to support the legislation in the way that it has been proposed.