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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 312 ..

MR STANHOPE: Clause 33 of the bill re-enacts section 3 of the Subordinate Laws Act to provide that it is sufficient if any two ministers sign regulations to bring them into force. Mr Speaker, you may recall that the Labor Party prepared and presented a bill to amend the Subordinate Laws Act to require that one of the two ministers was in fact the portfolio minister. This was done to enforce ministerial and cabinet responsibility and to prevent the situation reoccurring that occurred in relation to the abortion regulations where two ministers who had no responsibility for administering the abortion regulations that members will recall we passed made the regulations over the apparent objections of the health minister-

Mr Humphries: When is that bill coming on for debate, Jon?

MR STANHOPE: We are debating it today.

Mr Humphries: No, the one you just talked about, the bill that you introduced.

MR STANHOPE: It has been overtaken by this piece of legislation. I have introduced the amendments that constituted the bill-

Mr Humphries: Only in respect of this matter.

MR STANHOPE: No, this is the matter. This is the entire bill. Actually, in the interests of the appropriate operations of the Assembly and the efficient operations of the parliament, Chief Minister, we are actually dealing with the matter now in the context of this bill. You have some objection to efficiency, do you, Chief Minister? I am sure you do.

MR SPEAKER: Order, please. I do not want a debate across the chamber, thank you.

MR STANHOPE: I am not debating now; I am just telling him. This is a matter that we are now proceeding with. I think members will recall that instance. I think it was a real Clayton's objection. We ended up with an absolutely absurd situation where two ministers introduced regulations that the minister responsible for the portfolio apparently objected to-I say "apparently" advisedly-which I think was an absolute nonsense in circumstances where a parliament is supposedly operating under Westminster principles and endorsing notions of cabinet solidarity and ministerial responsibility. A minister responsible under the administrative orders for the administration of a piece of legislation delegated all of his responsibilities to his parliamentary colleagues in a circumstance where he opposed supposedly absolutely the nature of the regulation.

I think this is an absolutely nonsensical situation for us to tolerate. A minister responsible for the administration of a piece of legislation stood in this place and said, "I oppose absolutely these regulations which my ministerial colleagues are forcing on me," and then voted against regulations that his ministerial colleagues introduced in relation to a piece of legislation for which he was solely responsible. It undercuts to a degree that we should not tolerate.

Mr Quinlan: He should resign, I reckon.

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