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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1787 ..

On 30 June 1999 he stated that notions of ministerial responsibility are fundamental to the Westminster system. I note that Mr Stanhope quoted Sir Ivor Jennings, who in a chapter in a book called The Executive State: WA Inc. and the Constitution stated, “Each Minister is responsible to parliament for the conduct of his department.” On 24 November 1999 Mr Stanhope stated:

Whilst the code of conduct dealt primarily, as perhaps befits a document emanating from a Liberal government, with issues concerning interests with private companies and businesses, it has this to say about the principle of accountability:

All ministers will recognise that full and true disclosure and accountability to the parliament are cornerstones of the Westminster system, which at the present time is the basis for government in the ACT…Ministerial responsibility also requires…the individual responsibility of ministers to the Assembly for the administration of their departments and agencies.

How can a minister who champions such responsibility manage to forget, in his capacity as acting Minister for Emergency Services, a telephone call made at this critical time? How did the matter come to light only 18 months after the events of that tragic day? Could this man, Mr Stanhope, be the same man who, when standing against Mr Humphries for the position of Chief Minister, stated so emphatically on 18 October 2000:

Mr Speaker, I am standing for election as Chief Minister because I have the capacity to do the job properly. I will be supported by a cabinet of capacity. As Chief Minister I will restore faith in the processes of government. I will rebuild the public service and restore its confidence, and restore the confidence of the public in the public service. Mr Speaker, I will restore the integrity of our decision-making process and make government open and accountable.

Is this also the Jon Stanhope, Chief Minister, who on 21 June 2001 was at variance with his own party’s subsequent code of conduct of February 2004? He asked the following question to the then Chief Minister:

My question is to the Chief Minister. Yesterday the Chief Minister welcomed the Auditor-General’s latest report Enhancing Professionalism and Accountability, in a media release headed “Government overwhelmingly supports Auditor-General’s Report”. Is the Chief Minister aware that in the report the Auditor concluded that the traditional or accepted concept of ministerial responsibility is broader that that held by ministers in his government?…The Auditor concluded that the definition accepted by this government involved no more than responsibility for improper conduct, ie criminal behaviour or deliberately misleading the Assembly. For the Auditor, the Chief Minister’s narrow concept of ministerial responsibility raises the question of who, if anyone, is responsible, and leaves a significant gap in public accountability. Does the fact that the Chief Minister welcomed the Auditor’s report and that the government overwhelmingly supports it mean that the Chief Minister is now fully and properly responsible and will accept a broader definition of ministerial responsibility?

That ends the question asked by Mr Stanhope. It is important to refer to that question because in that question of 21 June Mr Stanhope, the then Leader of the Opposition,

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