Page 2288 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 16 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
presumably we can just get on the phone to the Minister for Health, to the chief executive, and we can seek briefings, we can have correspondence, regardless of the minister’s office. I am sure they are not proposing that that is the new standard. They are simply trying to have it both ways. They are saying that when it suits them the public servants will deal direct, but the rest of the time they will make sure it is all filtered through the minister’s office.
Mr Speaker, this is at the heart of this issue: it is the double standard being applied by this government. When they do not like it, they distance themselves from it; they have no responsibility. You are responsible for your department.
Ms Gallagher: Who do you write to on FOI then?
MR SESELJA: The Treasurer, the minister not responsible, the minister who never claims responsibility for anything unless there is good news—
Government members interjecting—
MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Seselja has the floor, thank you.
MR SESELJA: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The minister who simply appears to never be responsible for anything that goes wrong, for anything that goes wrong in her department, and then we see public servants, on her behalf when it suits, attacking members of the opposition and members of this place. That is why we believe it is unreasonable. That is why we believe this process was incorrect and inappropriate and that is why it should be examined. It is an inappropriate use of the public service.
It must be said that we saw the politicisation of the public service by ministers right throughout the estimates process. It is disingenuous for the minister to claim that it is now appropriate for chief executives to launch political attacks on the part of ministers but that we are not to have the right to correspond directly with departments, to seek briefings directly from departments.
Departments are part of the government. The minister is answerable for what happens in the department and, no matter how Ms Gallagher tries to deflect from that, how Ms Gallagher tries to claim that it is not so, she is responsible for what goes on in her department and she needs to take responsibility for it instead of having her battles fought for her by the chief executive of her department. We saw a number of concerning issues, which no doubt will be dealt with in debates about the estimates report.
Mr Hanson’s motion is completely appropriate. We acknowledge the amendment that has been moved by Ms Bresnan. I think Mr Hanson’s wording got it right but I do not think there is a substantial difference. I think it is important that this issue be examined and I think it is important that we stand up on this issue of principle, to ensure that we do not see this kind of behaviour in future and that this issue can be examined. It is proper that the Assembly look at it and I look forward to the conclusion of this process.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .