Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 12 Hansard (24 November) . . Page.. 3558 ..
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
Ministers", one that would form a "key part of the Liberals' commitment to open government". I should emphasise for those members who may be somewhat confused as to which Chief Minister made these comments that they were, in fact, taken from a media release of Kate Carnell, Chief Minister, of 24 April 1995, headed "ACT Government releases code of conduct for Ministers".
"Ministers", said Mrs Carnell, "must accept standards of conduct which are different from those applying to others having office in the Assembly or the wider community". Whilst the code of conduct dealt primarily, as perhaps befits a document emanating from a Liberal government, with issues concerning interests with private companies and businesses, it has this to say about the principle of accountability:
All ministers will recognise that full and true disclosure and accountability to the Parliament are the cornerstones of the Westminster system which at the present time is the basis for government in the ACT ... Ministerial responsibility also requires ... the individual responsibility of ministers to the Assembly for the administration of their departments and agencies.
This is the Chief Minister's definition:
Ministerial responsibility ... requires ... the individual responsibility of ministers to the Assembly for the administration of their departments and agencies.
That is the Chief Minister's code of conduct. Members of this place know only too well how shoddily this Government has treated the Westminster conventions. It is only five months since we debated a similar motion, central to which was the Chief Minister's failure to observe the fundamental Westminster convention - and the Government's laws - that public money should not be spent without appropriation. In the current case, there has again been a failure of government agencies to observe the law, a failure to obtain planning permission for the demolition, a failure to observe the requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and a failure to follow the demolition code of practice.
As another example of how this Government views the Westminster principles, members will recall that, as part of the earlier debate I referred to, this Assembly asked for a raft of papers, but the Chief Minister chose to deliver only part of the request. More recently, she has refused to allow public servants to appear before an Assembly committee. Both of those interventions contravene long-held principles and demonstrate the Government's contempt for the system that the Chief Minister says is central to parliamentary practice in the ACT.
We can well understand that the Government has little demonstrated commitment to the notion of Westminster governance, so we are entitled to ask: What commitment has the Chief Minister to her stated views about the importance of ministerial responsibility? Does she still believe, as she told Professor Pearce, that at the end of the day the Minister is responsible? Does she still believe, as her code of conduct attests, that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .