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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Thursday, 12 February 2004) . . Page.. 311 ..

All these cases have been reported to the appropriate authorities—either to the police or to the department or to both—by me and/or by the responsible adult in each case. The bottom line is that the law has been broken. This is a most serious failing. According to the standards previously set by the Chief Minister, it is a failing that requires the minister to resign.

The minister has said publicly on a couple of occasions—the latest being this morning on 2CC radio—that she does not think this matter is worthy of her resigning, or words to that effect. We must remind ourselves here of the gravity of this matter and of our responsibility as elected members in this place, where we sign an oath to uphold the laws of the territory. An even greater responsibility comes to bear with the office of minister. To whom much is given much is required.

Mr Stanhope set that standard of ministerial responsibility when, as opposition leader, he demanded that a former Chief Minister resign because a Treasury bureaucrat allegedly broke the law regarding an overnight loan for the redevelopment of Bruce Stadium. Applying the same standards of ministerial conduct, the Minister for Education, Youth and Family Services should resign because the law was not only ignored but, worse still, broken by her officials, whom she has charge over—not the other way round.

Ministers have a series of bureaucrats who work under them and who are responsible for passing on information and complying with the law. The standard set by the Chief Minister is that, if the law has been broken, the minister responsible should go. In setting that standard Mr Stanhope quoted Sir Ivor Jennings, from 30 June 1999, in the book The Executive State: WA Inc and the Constitution, where he said, “Each minister is responsible to parliament for the conduct of his department.” Forgive my possible naivety, but don’t we appear to have a situation here where the tail is wagging the dog? Ministers are supposed to be in charge of their departments, not the departments in charge of their ministers.

Similarly, the law has been broken regarding statutory obligations to report child abuse in the ACT, a much more serious issue than money for a redevelopment. We are talking about the welfare, safety and protection of our children. Now, all of a sudden—we hear it often, and we have heard it this week—the Chief Minister does not think anybody needs to be held accountable, least of all himself or his minister.

The silence was deafening when it came to pleas from this side of the house for the Chief Minister to produce his code of conduct for ministers. I understand that at that time it was still at the printers, where it had been for quite some time. But—surprise, surprise!—the Chief Minister finally tabled it today. I was pleased to see that. What makes the situation even more serious is that the Chief Minister and the minister received many warnings regarding problems in Family Services over a period of months—not days, months. But it appears those warnings were ignored by the government and these ministers.

Why? They are the government; they are the ones in the seat of responsibility; they are the ministers. One explanation could be the Chief Minister’s admission that he and his ministers do not read all the committee reports or annual reports. The problem for the Chief Minister is that, in successive annual reports prepared for him as Attorney-General

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