Page 220 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 10 December 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
fancy of the Leader of the Opposition? Will it be the next thing from which they perceive they might extract some political points? It really is no way to do business.
It does subvert parliamentary democracy. It sounds a death knell for frank and fearless advice from government agencies. You only need to ask senior government officials about the implications of releasing documents such as this that were prepared on the basis that the information would remain confidential—attract the confidence that documents prepared for cabinet traditionally attract.
This document was certainly prepared by consultants in the first instance. The preparation was headed up by consultants. It was a consultancy assisted by a raft of senior ACT public servants, the majority of whom continue as senior ACT public servants, each and every one of whom in the giving of the frank and fearless advice which constitutes the strategic and functional review believed that the advice that they were giving would be and would remain confidential. What public servant would speak his or her mind in a cabinet submission if he or she believed that it would end up with Mr Smyth poring all over it, or the Leader of the Opposition sniffing for traces of political advantage?
You have to accept some of realties in relation to this. I was a public servant for 25 years and I know this to be the case. The ACT government adheres to the highest standards of accountability and transparency, but we also maintain a respect for the traditions of parliamentary democracy and the operations of the Westminster system under which all Australian governments operate and which, of course, all the governments operating under the commonwealth system abide by. These are the Westminster traditions that have supported and sustained the strength of our democracies, a significant plank of which is an adherence to the notion of cabinet confidentiality.
Cabinet meetings are crucial for discussing government policy. They enable ministers to share opinions and advice on issues, to debate those opinions, to consider competing pieces of advice from agencies with their own distinct philosophies and priorities and then to make executive decisions—decisions that they make collectively. That is why we adhere so rigorously to the notion of cabinet solidarity. It is because of the nature of the advice, the importance of the decisions and the importance for cabinet to accept as a whole responsibility for those decisions.
To simply gnaw away at that, to remove those fundamental planks that have sustained our democracies and supported our democracies and that are the reason that our democracies are so strong, destroys the inherent nature of our Westminster system and our strict adherence to it. ACT governments of all persuasions over the life of self-government during the last 20 years have adhered to these protocols and to these principles.
This is not something that is new or unique to this government. These are the protocols and the practices that were employed by Kate Carnell during her two terms of government. The arguments I make today are the arguments that Kate Carnell stood in this very spot and made. She stood where I stand now and she made this same argument about the importance of Westminster, the importance of cabinet confidentiality, and the importance of frank and fearless advice. This motion seeks to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .