Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (23 May) . . Page.. 1734 ..

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (5.52): Mr Speaker, these amendments really are quite superfluous. Subclause 31(1) describes the accountability of chief executives to responsible Ministers. The definition of "responsible Minister" in clause 3 reinforces the lines of responsibility. The Bill recognises that Ministers are responsible for their departments and chief executives are accountable to Ministers. The whole basis of our form of government is ministerial responsibility. It seems somewhat unnecessary to restate in every Act we put forward principles that are the basis upon which we operate, particularly as the amendments add nothing whatsoever to the legislation.

MR WHITECROSS (Leader of the Opposition) (5.53): Mr Speaker, the Opposition will be supporting these amendments. Our understanding, as is the Chief Minister's, is that they add nothing that is not already encompassed by the existing legislation, which is the principle that chief executives are responsible to their Minister and that the Minister is ultimately responsible for things. However, with the rate at which the Government looks around for other people to blame every time something goes wrong, it does not hurt to reinforce this principle once or twice. I am happy to support it.

I do not expect that the Greens or Michael Moore will be calling for a division on this. They call for divisions only to make silly political points about the Liberal Party and the Labor Party not agreeing to silly propositions. We had a division on the last amendment only so that Michael Moore could have a bet each way and vote against the Greens once and for the Greens once. That is just the way it is.

MR MOORE (5.54): Mr Speaker, I rise because I have a concern about the drafting of the amendment. It says:

... after "responsible" insert ", under the responsible Minister,".

In fact, the word "responsible" appears twice in subclause 31(2). If applied as it is currently worded, it would read, "The responsible, under the responsible Minister, Chief Executive of a department shall be responsible for ensuring ...".

Mr Whitecross: No; it is line 16, not line 15.

MR MOORE: Just line 16? Thank you, Mr Whitecross; that has eased my mind no end. I can now, at the end of a long couple of weeks sitting, feel very comfortable, and I have pleasure in being able to support this amendment. I think all it does is clarify - in a sense it is redundant - that the responsibility lies clearly with the Minister and, as such, ensures the Westminster principle of ministerial responsibility. This will mean that I can have my each-way bet, as Mr Whitecross likes to perceive it.

MR KAINE (5.56): Mr Speaker, since we are being a little semantic, perhaps I could suggest that, if in subclause 31(2) the word "responsible", second-time appearing, had been "accountable", it would have resolved the issue. We have already said in subclause 31(1) that the chief executive is accountable to the responsible Minister.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .