Page 4926 - Week 13 - Thursday, 12 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We heard from the minister today on Ross Solly’s program. He was seeking to rewrite the rules on ministerial accountability. Ross Solly put to him the old adage that the buck stops at the head; that in this case the buck should stop with the minister. Of course, Mr Corbell replied: “Well, this is an Actew project. It is run by the Actew board and the Actew board are the decision makers around the cost and that has been quite clear from day one.”
There is no ministerial accountability. We have a new doctrine from Simon Corbell on ministerial accountability: it is someone else’s problem. Why do we bother having a minister responsible for these projects if the minister is not responsible in the end? He can always blame someone else. If it is not Actew, it could be the department; it could be someone else. There is always someone else who has made decisions somewhere down the line who you can blame. But in the end ministers are accountable. That is how we have structured our system. It is the ministers in this place who are accountable for their actions.
But what we are seeing consistently in this place and through this process are deals being done to try, in one way or another, to limit that scrutiny. That is why we need an open, transparent and thorough inquiry. That is why the Legislative Assembly should examine these issues. If the government truly, as it claims from time to time, had nothing to hide, if the government was completely comfortable with all of this process and the way it has been handled right down the chain, it would have no problem with an open and transparent inquiry. But instead we are seeing that blocked.
I commend this motion to the Assembly. I commend the idea that we cannot outsource this kind of accountability; that it is our role as elected representatives to scrutinise government. We need to continue to do that. We will continue to push to do that, and this inquiry is a very important way of achieving that goal.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (10.45): What we have seen today is the very sad spectacle of a marginalised and increasingly irrelevant opposition. What we see today is an opposition that is seeking to make an argument about a fundamentally important project for this city that Canberrans want to see proceed. Canberrans know how important water security is for their city and they want to see our water utility, our government and the Assembly as a whole making decisions that ensure that we improve water security for this, Australia’s largest inland city.
But what have we seen from those opposite? Have we seen from them any constructive or deliberate approach to try and address this issue in a way which is considered, which is constructive and which has a clear path forward? No, we have not. Instead, what we have seen from them is an attempt to play politics with the issue of water security. That is the last thing that Canberrans want to see. They do not want to see politics played with the vital issue of water security. They do not want to see cheap and quick political points scored by the opposition on the issue of water security. They want to see a considered and a reasonable approach to these issues.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video