Page 1940 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 25 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
referring to Mr Seselja—
is advocating that ministers should make judgments in the interests of the community.
When exactly, Mr Speaker, did the community participate in a decision involving one of the largest infrastructure projects ever to be undertaken in Canberra? When exactly did the community participate in the decision to locate the project less than a kilometre from their homes? The answer is simple, Mr Speaker—they participated after the decisions had been made. They participated after the horse had bolted. They participated only when the government was satisfied it had gone so far down the track it could not turn back.
When the community did participate, it was in anger and it was in frustration. It was in anger and frustration, because the Stanhope Labor government either could not trust their participation or the government simply failed to properly consider the impact of the project on the residents. These failures have resulted in $1 billion in project costs, not to mention the ongoing economic loss to the territory due to the lowered capacity of the facility.
The fourth element of good governance where the Stanhope Labor government has failed is ministerial responsibility. The trust that the people of Canberra put in their elected representatives demands we ensure ministers accept responsibility for the decisions of their government and its administration. The Australasian Study of Parliament Group in its 2007 report of the accountability working party entitled “Be honest, minister! Restoring honest government in Australia” comments:
Ministerial accountability fails when governments seize and hold political advantage, putting partisan interests ahead of the democratic rights of citizens and their entitlement to be treated with integrity, dignity and respect.
In this regard, Mr Speaker, the Chief Minister and his government have failed perhaps worst of all.
This government is so arrogant as to think ministerial responsibility is a burden that others must carry. We have seen every single minister over the past four years stand up in this chamber and blame others for their shortcomings. Ministers, including the Chief Minister, have tried to shift the blame to someone else ranging from issues in relation to not warning people in 2003, reporting assessments of our health system, the recent balloon fiasco, costs blowouts of the GDE, and the Chief Minister and his deputy trying to hide behind the thin veil of share certificates in government business enterprises such as Rhodium.
Mr Speaker, the Chief Minister and his deputy are the shareholders of Actew Corporation, which itself holds a 50 per cent share in ActewAGL. However as a shareholder and minister, the Chief Minister confuses his responsibilities. As a shareholder, the minister may be supportive of a proposal, but, as a regulatory decision maker, he should be neutral. The Chief Minister sees his role in the absolute reverse. He says he is neutral in his capacity as a shareholder, but, in his capacity as a minister, he is an active supporter of a proposal. When asked in estimates whether as a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .