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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 1 Hansard (30 April) . . Page.. 272 ..

The work conducted by the Assembly's Select Committee on Self-Government which reported in 1990 lends support to this view. The Select Committee was tasked with examining, amongst other things:

the form of government most appropriate in the ACT taking into account the responsibilities of state, territory and municipal governments.

In examining the various options of the form of government most appropriate in the ACT the Committee noted that the executive committee system was tried at national level in two small island states, the Seychelles in the Indian Ocean and the Solomon Islands in the Pacific. After experimenting with the committee system both states moved to a more conventional ministerial system.3

The Committee gave consideration to an executive committee system modelled on the "Donoughmore version of Westminster" which included chairmen who have the status of Ministers and constitute an executive board. The system was designed to allow all political parties and independents to participate in administrative supervision and policy development, and to allow backbenchers and minority representatives an effective share of responsibility with a more consensus style of government utilising all available talent within the legislature resulting.

However, the Committee had a number of reservations about the model. Accepted avenues of political accountability could be blurred by the opposition parties effectively becoming a part of the executive.4 Further, it noted the absence of an individual ultimately responsible and accountable for a particular portfolio as the establishment of executive committees diffuses responsibility and denies ministerial responsibility.5 Finally, it asserted that the Executive committee system does not sit well with public questioning and scrutiny of the executive by the minority parties, or "opposition", which is a feature of the Australian Parliamentary system.6

Available evidence suggests that providing a governing role for the executive committees chaired by Assembly Members or with MLA's as members would seriously compromise the scrutiny role of the Assembly.

Impact on Role of Assembly Committees

Since its inception the Assembly has had a vigorous and active committee system with the committees undertaking both a policy making and scrutiny role, often performed under difficult circumstances. All standing committees have inherent in their terms of reference a role in monitoring and evaluating the performance of the executive and the Public Service. The Assembly has also seen fit to include in the laws of the Territory specific responsibilities for its committees. An indication of the increasing policy role of the committees is the decision of the Assembly, in May 1995, to adopt a standing order providing the authority for committees to prepare and present discussion papers to the Assembly for its consideration. These committees have undertaken their duties with limited membership and limited staffing and financial resources.

The effect of the operation of Assembly committees during the period where Executive
Deputies existed was considerable. In December 1989 the then Chief Minister, Mr Kaine,
appointed 5 Executive Deputies in addition to the 4 Ministers comprising the
Executive. On 14 December 1989 Mr Kaine tabled in the Assembly guidelines for the relationship between Ministers and their Executive Deputies and these are shown at

_________________________

3 Select Committee on Self Government, Report, 20 April 1990, p.39
4 ibid, p. 37
5 ibid, p. 58
6 ibid,p.39

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