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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1781 ..

It is pertinent to this debate to refer to the view of the coroner and counsel assisting the coroner. On the day he informed the inquiry of my letter, 4 May this year, counsel assisting indicated that he did not believe it necessary to recall me to give further evidence. (Extension of time granted.) On 5 May the coroner, in court, offered me the opportunity to return to give further evidence. She said, however, that neither she nor counsel assisting could see any need for me to be recalled. I agree with that view.

Almost inevitably, debates of this nature in this place have canvassed the issue of ministerial responsibility. Mr Smyth has referred to the concept in the week since he gave notice of his motion. But I cannot see the relevance of a debate on ministerial responsibility to the issue before us. I have not been charged with overseeing a government operation that has gone wrong. There is no Bruce Stadium in this; there is no Canberra Hospital implosion. This is a case of failing to remember. This motion is based on failing to remember some phone calls.

Mr Speaker, I will, however, take a moment to expound on the notion. Within the framework of the self-government act, the ACT executive conforms to well-established Westminster-style principles of collective and individual ministerial responsibility. Perhaps one of the most definitive Australian statements of the importance of individual ministerial responsibility was provided by the 1976 report of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration, headed by the late HC “Nugget” Coombs, which stated:

It is through ministers that the whole of the administration—departments, statutory bodies and agencies of one kind and another—is responsible to Parliament and thus, ultimately, to the people. … The responsibility of ministers individually to parliament is not mere fiction. … Parliament is the correct forum, the only forum, to test or expose ministerial administrative competence or fitness to hold office.

Westminster principles of individual ministerial responsibility were strongly reaffirmed by the ACT government as recently as 12 February this year, when I tabled the new code of conduct for ministers. The new code was the result of a comprehensive review of the code used by the previous ministry, involving examination of best practice standards across Australia and overseas and incorporating the principles and values that reflect the high standards expected of someone in a minister’s position of trust.

In tabling the new code of conduct, I affirmed that my government did not intend simply to adopt a code and think nothing more of it. I said that the government would not back away from the code when it suited; instead the government intended to stand by it and uphold its values. With regard to individual ministerial responsibility, the code of conduct for ministers states:

All Ministers are to recognise the importance of full and true disclosure and accountability to the Parliament.

… Being answerable to the Assembly requires Ministers to ensure that they do not wilfully mislead the Assembly in respect of their Ministerial responsibilities. The ultimate sanction for a Minister who so misleads is to resign or be dismissed.

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