Page 3049 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 17 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
perhaps you will advise me whether these off-limits will apply to conversing with ACT public servants at government functions, or in the street, or when we get into the lift with them. In other words, are non-government members allowed to speak to ACT public servants at all, or are we somehow breaking a directive of this Labor Government?
The directive against non-government members and their staff dealing directly with departmental officers on constituency matters serves no useful purpose and it should be repealed. It is time consuming; it denies constituents the democratic right to have their problems dealt with quickly; it is insulting to those involved on both sides, I submit; and it does this Government no credit. I believe that it reveals, despite the Government's empty rhetoric about openness and community consultation, that it is petty, paranoid and extremely mean-spirited.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (3.47): Madam Speaker, Mr Cornwell's invective masks the fact that this matter has been debated fairly recently. Indeed, I thought at that time that members had been made aware of the situation that applies and the guidelines that are there to be followed. Before I go into that, I want to touch on two issues. The first is the extreme reluctance of members opposite to commit themselves to paper - in other words, to write a letter on behalf of their constituents. For my part, with the exception of Mr Kaine, I never get a letter from them. One of the basic problems is that they seek to rely at all times on this sort of informal contact, which does make for difficult relations. I would ask them, if they have an issue of substance, to write a letter. That is what most of our constituents do, after all. It is a sign that they are serious, and it also makes sure that the response given to the member is a properly considered response and is dealt with in the proper timeframe.
The other issue I would like to touch on is the fact - and it is a fact - that under a Westminster system the public service is accountable to the Government and the Government to this Assembly. The public service is not there to work for members opposite. They may do so, but they are basically there to serve the Government. I think members opposite, and Mr Cornwell in particular, in accusing us about their lack of direct access to the ACT public service, are absolutely right. I have no problem with that.
The issue of access by non-government members to the information held by the ACT Government Service officers has been debated, and I find it very surprising to see the issue resurfacing today. Mr Cornwell is confused about open government and an open public service. We have not campaigned on the basis of an open public service, nor could we ever do that. We have here a Westminster system. We have open government, and that means that the Ministers are responsible, and they are responsible to this Assembly.
Members might recall from the previous debate, though clearly some of them do not, that the Government has reaffirmed the substance of the guidelines that are used to assist ACT Government Service officers in handling the requests they receive from members of the Assembly for information. The guidelines have previously been circulated by the administration, and circulated under successive ACT governments, including the Alliance Government. The guidelines have as their cornerstone the principle that requests from members for information, other than readily available or routine or factual information, should be pursued with Ministers. That is a fact. The guidelines also contemplate informing Ministers of requests for information, and quite rightly too.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .