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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1791 ..

ministerial standards that, by his own admission, quite clearly he has not lived up to. My colleague Mr Cornwell has referred to one part of the Chief Minister’s opening day speech of 12 November 2001. The Chief Minister said at that time:

Mr Speaker, Labor went to the election not only on a detailed policy platform that has been endorsed by the people but also on a view about how governments should govern. Labor accepts that the traditions and time-honoured practices of Westminster remain at the core of responsible government.

As government has grown, the concept of ministerial responsibility has changed. A requirement to resign is only necessary where the action under scrutiny was theirs; the action was taken on their direction; or was something with which they ought to have been concerned. However, page 48 of the House of Representatives Practice quotes from Professor Emy’s book The Politics of the Australian Democracy. It says that in cases where the minister has misled parliament, condoned or authorised a blatantly unreasonable use of executive power or, more vaguely, where the minister’s behaviour contravenes established standards of morality, resignation or dismissal is the appropriate sanction.

Today we have a Chief Minister who, at the very least, has admitted to misleading the Assembly about one significant matter relating to 18 January 2003. So, what should we do? Is it appropriate for the Assembly to retain confidence in a Chief Minister who could have checked phone records but instead relied solely on memory, thus misleading the Assembly and the community? Is it appropriate for the Assembly to retain confidence in a Chief Minister who will decline the invitation of a coroner to return to the witness box and clarify the state of his memory during the period surrounding bushfires? Is it appropriate to retain confidence in a Chief Minister who forgets vital facts?

Of course the bushfires were a busy time but sometimes government is like that. Governments face crises from time to time. Governments have faced war and life and death situations, yet people have not lost their memories in crucial times. People have been put under incredible pressure and still remember salient facts—just as a number of people who have given evidence at the coronial inquest have remembered salient conversations, despite having been in life-threatening situations in some instances. The Canberra community must have confidence in a head of government who is frank with the community, properly notifies them about information they should be aware of and does not just forget information or keep it to themselves. They must have confidence that their Chief Minister will continue to be able to make decisions when crises arise.

The closest Australian precedent to the one before the Assembly is from 1987, as far as I can judge. In that year John Brown, the tourism minister in the Hawke federal Labor government, told the House of Representatives that he had asked a committee to reconsider a tender for Expo 88 because the committee’s vote on who should be the preferred bidder was deadlocked. However, he found out that there was a clear majority for one tenderer amongst those able to vote at a later time. When Minister Brown reviewed the relevant file, it became clear that he had made a mistake as to who on the committee was entitled to vote. A Labor minister, he then resigned, citing his genuine respect for the institution of parliament. That may not seem a terribly serious event but I think it shows the high standard that has been set throughout parliaments. The evidence shown by the opposition shows quite clearly that the Chief Minister has misled the

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