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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 10 February 2004) . . Page.. 67 ..

They were the terms in which Mr Smyth introduced this piece of legislation, in which he said the purpose of this section is to ensure that the chief executive of the department has full accountability and responsibility for its administration. We thank Mr Smyth for that particular piece of extrinsic evidence that we would rely on in relation to an interpretation of this piece of legislation.

But over and above that, of course, the issue of ministerial responsibility is something which we have long debated and which we have tended perhaps not to agree on in the past. The last significant debate in the Assembly on ministerial responsibility was, of course, in 1999 in relation to a no-confidence motion on the matter of the Bruce Stadium—a no-conference motion which, I hasten to add, was not successful. I say it was not successful essentially to put in context the description or the discussion of the issue around ministerial responsibility which was contained in the Auditor-General’s report No 2 of 2001 entitled “Enhancing professionalism and accountability”. I think this is the last word on ministerial responsibility we have had in a formal published sense in the ACT.

Certainly, the last serious debate in this Assembly on ministerial responsibility was in 1999. On that occasion the debate was on a motion moved by me, which was unsuccessful. The then government prevailed in the position it put, the arguments it made and its explanation and description of ministerial responsibility. So that is the last and final word that this Assembly has on the matter. It was reported on by the Auditor-General, as I say, in report No 2 of 2001. The Auditor-General said:

The most serious sanction for a Minister is that the Minister may be required to resign or be dismissed. This would normally occur as the result of a no confidence motion.

He went on to describe the debate. In that debate the then Chief Minister said she disagreed with the prospect that the Chief Minister had to resign if there was a systemic problem anywhere in the public service that the Chief Minister did not know about. That was, as I say, the position that prevailed on the day. It is the last word on ministerial responsibility in the Legislative Assembly. This last published word on ministerial responsibility can be found in the debate on a motion which I had moved. I was not successful in having that motion accepted—you prevailed and this is your position. This is the position the Assembly adopted in 1999 on the basis of the arguments you presented. This was the principal argument presented by you on that case on that occasion.

I shall quote Mrs Carnell, your leader at the time, who led the debate for you and, as I say, was successful in putting this position. Mrs Carnell said:

The bases of ministerial responsibility are quite clear. If a Minister defrauds the system in any way…the Minister goes; no doubt. If a Minister ignores advice…the Minister should be out. But if problems occur at the administrative levels of the Public Service that the Minister knows nothing about, any view that the Minister should then resign or be sacked is patently ridiculous.

Mr Smyth: It’s not what you said.

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