Page 4218 - Week 13 - Thursday, 14 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
positions for such a performance. One might think that it sets a bad example to other public servants tacitly to condone directors who allow such activities to go on under their noses. One might even suspect that some degree of incompetence could be involved. But after yesterday’s performance we can only presume that the Chief Minister does not think so. In his opinion even to suggest such a thing would be an actionable defamation and worthy of the sincerest serious tones and gravest finger-pointing.
Mr Hargreaves: I take a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I ask you to bring the member to order under standing order 62. We heard the Auditor-General’s report and this is irrelevant and tedious repetition.
MR ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.
DR FOSKEY: A minister who refuses to accept responsibility for any wrongdoing or who fails to recognise that bureaucratic practices and procedures are demonstrated by events to be deficient is setting up himself or herself for a big fall. It also sets a bad example to the vast majority of public servants who do the right thing, who do not improperly spend public funds, and who do not refuse to accept responsibility for ensuring that potential buyers of public assets all receive the same level of information to enable them to make an accurate assessment of the value of those assets.
This is not rocket science and it is not hard to grasp. It is called good management practice. It might not be such good spin management but it is good governance practice. It is called taking responsibility, and that is what responsible government is about. If no-one is honest or brave enough to take responsibility for failures, someone will have to recognise these shortcomings and take action to ensure that poor practices do not happen again. Governments cannot always introduce bills like this to sell off offending organisations.
But is it really an appropriate response to bureaucratic incompetence or deliberate malfeasance for the minister to throw his arms in the air and say, “It is too hard; sell it off; get it out of my sight”? It might well be, but I do not think it is. The Rhodium board is still in place and, as far as I am aware, no legal action is on foot against any of the management team. Someone should take responsibility for Rhodium management being allowed to take off on a frolic of its own. Similarly, responsibility must be taken for the LDA and ACTPLA giving different information to different bidders.
It should be understood that the buck has to stop somewhere. The Chief Minister should get out a thesaurus while he is at it, as there must be some description for actions undertaken in the performance of a public official’s duties that fail to come up to the reasonable standards expected of a person in that position. I reiterate that while I believe selling Rhodium is one solution to the problem of mismanagement—it is one that will bring the government some revenue in the short term—we cannot be sure that the new owners will shop locally or that the cost of cars will remain affordable.
Like government and opposition members, I received representations from the Motor Trades Association urging me to oppose this bill. While I do not think that the full
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .