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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 10 February 2004) . . Page.. 72 ..

with direct access to the Chief Minister. We are talking about the Chief Minister’s media adviser; her personal staff; the staff in her office.

Presumably, Mr Speaker, that means that ministers have an implied responsibility when major chief executives and other senior people in their department make significant errors. Mr Stanhope continued:

Mr Speaker, the Chief Minister has relied heavily for her defence on an interpretation of the notion of ministerial responsibility that neither she nor her Ministers could be held to account for the administrative failings of departments or agencies under their control. Yet, and as I said this morning, the Chief Minister’s own code for conduct for Ministers sets the standard she is bound to respect. According to the code, ministerial responsibility requires the individual responsibility of Ministers to the Assembly for the administration of their departments and agencies. That is the standard. That is where the bar is set.

He continued:

There is a responsibility that can be applied here. In that matrix the Public Service is responsible to the Minister; the Minister is responsible to the parliament; and the parliament is responsible to the people. The test that arises from the matrix is, as I have mentioned, proximity.

Mr Stanhope, as I said, has not developed a code of conduct for his ministers. Indeed, some of his statements—such as, “Now listen you bastards, don’t stuff up”—show that he holds a rather contemptuous view of the need for ministerial standards.

In the past couple of years we have seen this government display a contemptuous response towards Westminster standards and ethical standards generally. We have had the Auditor-General point to a possible breach of the law in regard to the $10 million Treasurer’s Advance by Ministers Quinlan and Wood. We have seen Mr Corbell found to have been in contempt of the Assembly, which would have seen him forced to resign if the government was serious about standards.

We have seen the CEO of Actew, Michael Costello, write a blatantly party political column for the Australian, which again is in clear breach of the Westminster system’s ideal of a non-partisan public service offering frank and fearless advice to the government of the day. We have had the Department of Education, Youth and Family Services breaking the law, despite the minister having had clear warnings for several months from the relevant Assembly committee and the Community Advocate. And we have had members of Mr Corbell’s department found to have committed contempt of the Assembly over briefing notes they provided for senior executives preparing for estimates. Yet the Chief Minister fails to act.

It is clear that this Chief Minister is not prepared to comply with the ministerial standards that he advocated and advocated very strongly, as I have quoted, in opposition. There is a clear inconsistency in the standards he advocated in opposition and the standards that he has now adopted. It is time for this Assembly to insist that he takes the Westminster principle of individual ministerial responsibility seriously.

MS TUCKER (4.34): I wish to speak briefly in this important debate. The whole question of ministerial responsibility has come up before in this place. In fact, I was just

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