Page 3008 - Week 08 - Thursday, 25 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
meet the highest standards of governance and democracy as outlined through these principles, we must exercise open, honest and accountable practices in our representation of the people of the ACT.
There must be a process that allows for public intervention and debate and the understanding that effective transparency means that the public has access to accurate information in a timely manner. We are elected to represent all the people of the ACT, not a select few with particular interests, and it is a fundamental requirement that elected officials act ethically. Transparency is of vital importance, as democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency.
The Greens believe that transparency is a powerful tool to demonstrate to the public that their money is being spent wisely, that all members of the Assembly are operating in an accountable mariner and that decisions are made to ensure the safety and protection of all Canberrans. Open and accountable government, in its simplest term, is about trust and, if the government first displays a lack of trust in the public by not being answerable for their performance or results, then it is translated as the public’s inability to handle and understand the information.
The government cannot operate in secret or refuse to disclose information to the public, as it is in essence stripping the public of its ability to oversee and hold the government accountable. The public must have sufficient information to fully understand the context in which decisions are made, and the Greens will be ensuring that these principles are upheld within the Assembly.
MR HANSON (Molonglo) (4.24): I thank Mrs Dunne for bringing this matter of public importance before the chamber today. It talks about very important matters—honesty, openness and accountability. At one stage all of us shared those three principles very strongly but, as we have seen this government go on and get tired, the adherence to those principles has ebbed somewhat.
If you compare their rhetoric when they were in opposition in 2001 to where they sit now as a government, it is a very different story. If you listen to what Mr Stanhope was saying back in 2001, that governments must be scrutinised, they must be accountable, this is the role of oppositions and so on, and if you listen to what Mr Stanhope was saying about how they are going to be measured, how they are going to be responsible and how they are going to be open, you hear more about how Labor understands that good government does not bully, it leads; good government accepts criticism; good government has the courage to allow itself to be closely scrutinised; it conducts its operations in an open, honest and accountable manner, not in secret. Labor rejected “the behind closed door deals and the failure of process, a failure of process that has left a legacy”.
Certainly back then they were objective to all of that and said that they were going to operate in an open, honest and accountable manner. But what have we seen? I think that what we have seen is a government that has increasingly behaved in the opposite fashion. I would contend—and I accept that this is speculation—that if it were not for minority government in this Assembly we would have seen a further erosion of this government’s behaviour; that if it were not for the fact that we have now have
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .