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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (13 May) . . Page.. 1326 ..

MR KAINE (Minister for Urban Services) (5.23): I wanted to speak briefly because I think we are in danger of doing something foolish that not only the members of the Government but also members of the Opposition may regret in the future. We have been debating for some time now two issues. One is the general proposition by the Opposition that the Minister has not been doing all that well at managing his department. That debate was concluded. We are now discussing a specific issue about which some people are highly emotional, rightly or wrongly. But let us be clear. There is a legitimate administrative process in train that I think the Assembly is in danger of cutting across, to our own detriment, and that is the process that is set in train when an Ombudsman takes a matter under advisement and looks at it. Regardless of how the Labor Party feels about the issue broadly, they need to consider very carefully whether they are going to support this motion of censure when the debate is over.

I believe that the Greens have jumped the gun in bringing it up at this time. The Ombudsman has already made a report concerning this specific matter, with recommendations which the Government is obliged to look at for future action. In the middle of this process the Greens want to censure the Minister. The process is not yet complete. I believe that the Government is entitled to the opportunity to consider the recommendations that have come from the Ombudsman and that the Assembly should not curtail the right and the opportunity for the Government to do that. I say that in due recognition of the fact that the people opposite may one day again be back in government and they may find themselves in the same situation, a situation which I think is rather unnecessary and undesirable.

Mr Speaker, the Ombudsman regularly investigates complaints against ACT agencies. That is her job. These investigations frequently lead to criticisms targeted at administrative aspects of the performance of ACT government agencies. Are we going to have a ministerial censure every time the Ombudsman criticises the administration for one of its administrative processes or one of its administrative decisions? Of course not.

Mr Berry: No.

MR KAINE: No, says Mr Berry; but in this one case you say it is okay. I refer to the Ombudsman's 1993-94 annual report during the period of the Follett Government. The Ombudsman dealt with a total of 503 complaints against ACT government agencies in that reporting year. They excluded complaints against the AFP in their community policing role. These complaints included failure by agencies to give adequate reasons, misuse of powers, as well as pursuit of other things like parking fines in excess of powers.

The Ombudsman plays an important role in ensuring accountability on the part of government. Section 18 reports enable the Ombudsman to raise issues of concern with the relevant agency. The Government would now like to consider in some detail the conclusions and recommendations that have come from the Ombudsman on this matter. I do not believe it is conducive to good outcomes to do this in the context of political debate about the matter, and certainly not in the context of a political debate where the Minister has already been censured by this place. How on earth can any reasonable outcome come about under those circumstances?

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