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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (29 August) . . Page.. 3595 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

One of the terrible regrets that we in this Assembly ought to acknowledge is that there is now a younger generation of public servants whose professional development has not had the benefit of superiors who, in their development, learned these qualities. They are all contracted people, right down the line. They come here and next year they go. That generation, in my view, is at risk of being subverted in their professional standards by the kind of policy-making that has blighted this territory in recent years-the decision-making debacles that led to the implosion disaster, the several stadium debacles, the Kinlyside fiasco, and so on. We all know of all of the instances of poor management and poor decision-making.

We must acknowledge, gratefully, that many of those younger public servants have an intuitive sense of those qualities and endeavour to apply them in their work. But if the people at the top do not possess those qualities because they have not come up through the ranks of the public service, we cannot blame employees at lower levels who may be manipulated against their better judgment. I guess I am talking here about the public service corporate ethic.

Sadly, I do not see Mr Osborne's bill providing the climate necessary for appointment of departmental heads who can satisfy the criteria to which I have referred. Mr Osborne proposes that this Assembly take the review role in the confirmation of departmental heads. This is somewhat different from the practice whereby the United States President appoints his unelected cabinet with the advice and consent of the Senate. This is not the same process by any means.

Despite all the failings of the present government, I strongly support the proposition that no legislature under the Westminster system should have a right to usurp the power of the elected government to appoint departmental heads when a vacancy arises for whatever reason. This legislature has no legitimate role to play in the processes of selecting, appointing and promoting our public servants.

On the other hand, I would equally support the argument that no government newly taking office has the right to automatically flush away all existing departmental heads and replace them with people sympathetic to its own political credo and pliant to its will. That is not part of the Westminster system and the democratic system I support.

While I cannot support the bill because of its proposal to dilute the power of the government to appoint departmental heads, I compliment Mr Osborne for the arguments for reform that he elucidated in his presentation speech. I commend that speech to all members. I suggest that they re-read it. It contains a great amount of wisdom from expert and unbiased analysts, observers and commentators. It describes and dissects some important problems of government. Regrettably, the core solution that Mr Osborne proposes is contrary to good government and parliamentary practice.

Had the bill replaced the practice of employing departmental heads on performance-based contracts with arrangements giving the government power to appoint departmental heads to tenured offices on the basis of merit, experience and professional skills, I might have been able to support it. But it is manifestly undesirable to put the power to endorse candidates for high office in the hands of people who might choose to use that power to frustrate a government. That way lies confusion, frustration and the potential for abuse of

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