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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 10 February 2004) . . Page.. 64 ..

It says further:

Ministers should ensure that policy initiatives or expenditure commitments which do not have Cabinet authority are not announced.

During the second term of the Canberra Liberals there were some changes to the concept of collective responsibility when Mr Moore became a minister. The ministerial code of conduct promulgated in August 1998 stated:

Mr Michael Moore MLA, a Minister in the seventh Carnell Ministry, retains his status as an Independent Member. In respect of Mr Moore, collective responsibility will apply except for those issues identified by Mr Moore as matters on which he will continue to dissent from stated Government policy and in respect of which he will not participate in the discussions and decisions of Cabinet.

Mr Speaker, these arrangements worked well, with Mr Moore making a very strong and positive contribution to the workings of cabinet. It is a precedent for a future Smyth government if circumstances warrant it. Further examples of history show that Trevor Kaine sacked Bernard Collaery in 1991 for being unable to comply with the collective decisions of cabinet. Federally, in 1989 Gary Punch resigned as Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support over a decision to build a third runway at the Kingsford Smith airport. Indeed, in the United Kingdom last year, several ministers, including Robin Cooke and Clair Short, resigned over participation in the Iraq war without the prior approval of the United Nations.

Individual ministerial responsibility means that a minister is responsible to the parliament for the actions of his or her department. He or she is expected to give an account to the Assembly of matters relating to changes within his or her portfolio, such as relevant events or policy changes. The convention is designed to ensure that ministers remain ultimately accountable to the Assembly and ultimately to the people of the ACT.

The Stanhope government has failed to develop a code of conduct after more that two and a quarter years in government and the matter is not covered in the cabinet handbook. We have not seen a statement by the government as to their definition of ministerial responsibility. In this, Mr Speaker, the Chief Minister continues to shirk his duty.

The 1998 ministerial code of conduct provided that ministers have broad responsibility for the operations and performance of their departments and agencies. The federal cabinet handbook provides:

The secretary of the department is, pursuant to the Public Service Act, responsible “under the Minister” for the general working of the department and for advising the minister in all matters relating to the department.

It goes on to say:

This does not mean that ministers bear individual liability for all actions of their departments. Where they neither knew, nor should have known about matters of departmental administration which came under scrutiny it is not unreasonable to expect that the secretary or some other senior officer will take responsibility.

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