Page 3917 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 15 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There are some examples of Ministers who have virtually no control over their budget. We know all about that already. Are we about to produce another Minister who has no control over his budget and who, at some stage during the fiscal year, discovers that his budget has blown out and he did not know because he was not on top of the magnitude of the contracts being let? It is not a matter of where the contracts went but the magnitude of them and the direction in which the money was going.
Quite frankly, this reflects an abdication by a Minister of his responsibility. He wants to hand over the responsibility to a public servant, and then if something goes wrong he can say, "But I did not make the decision. It was not my problem". That is not what ministerial accountability is about; it is not what the appropriation of budget funds is about. I do not think it is acceptable for a Minister simply to abdicate and pass that responsibility over to a public servant and say, "I do not want to know about it any more".
If that is what this Government is about, let us have it on the table as a clear government policy that they are going to abdicate from ministerial responsibility and do not want to know about it, because that is what is implied in this amendment. I find that unacceptable. I would have thought that Mr Moore would have found it unacceptable also and that he might vote accordingly. I still rely on his good sense to do so.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (9.15): Madam Speaker, I will just briefly respond. Mr Kaine and I have a common cause on this. Mr Kaine and I agree, I think, that the Minister should have responsibility and accountability for policy but not for the issue of the letting of individual contracts.
The problem is that the section we are changing here, when you go to the Housing Assistance Act, refers to "exercising a power involving the payment or receipt of moneys". So, this $500,000 to $1.5m is the contracts. It is the payment or receipt of moneys; it is not the policy stage. I can assure you, as I said in my opening remarks, that I do inform myself of the policy. If we decide as a policy that we will spot purchase 30 houses and we will put X million dollars out for that spot purchase, I will satisfy myself as to that. But when you go to the head Act, this section refers to "exercising a power involving the payment or receipt of these amounts". So, it is at the contract stage. Mr Kaine, while I agree with your principles of ministerial responsibility, I say to you that this relates to the contract stage and, for the reason I advanced earlier, I oppose the amendment.
MR CORNWELL (9.17): Madam Speaker, I must disagree with the Minister on this point. Firstly, may I apologise to Mr Moore. Mr Moore said that he had not been advised of the amendment I proposed to put forward. The reason is very simple, Mr Moore: I wanted at least to give the Minister the opportunity to answer to the full Assembly the questions I raised. I repeat that this morning my secretary gave the Minister's office the questions I sought to have answered tonight on the floor of the house. In fairness to the Minister's office, I might add, they passed them through to Mr Connolly and Mr Connolly attempted to answer them. However, in my opinion and in the Liberals' opinion, he did not answer them; but that is a matter for debate. I apologise to Mr Moore that it was not possible to give him advice of the amendments I was proposing until such time as the Minister had responded to the questions I put forward this morning.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .