Page 3336 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 17 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
today and what the text of any motion would be. I then followed up with a visit to his office to let him know that that email had been sent. Before I left the building last night just before 6 o’clock, I went to Mr Seselja’s office again seeking whether there was going to be a motion today and also the text of that motion. I was told that Mr Seselja was too busy to see me and so were his staff. It was only at 10 past nine this morning that we actually received by email a text of this motion. I find it very disappointing that the Liberals were unwilling to put the arguments to us so that we had a reasonable opportunity to evaluate the merits of their claims.
Moving along, I would like to address what a vote of no confidence means to my party. We note that sections 41 and 43 of the self-government act provide that it is the Chief Minister who appoints ministers and allocates the matters that they administer. While there are no clear rules throughout Australian parliaments that a minister should automatically resign or be relieved of the post following a motion of no confidence, it is the ACT Greens’ view that, where a minister does not enjoy the confidence of the Assembly, it is no longer appropriate that they continue in that role. This is consistent with basic principles of ministerial accountability to the parliament and parliamentary supremacy as opposed to executive supremacy in the government of the territory.
Continuing on, resolution 5 of the Legislative Assembly sets out the code of conduct that applies to all members of this place. It sets out the broad standards for us all in the fulfilment of our respective duties, and it should probably be the first port of call in evaluating members’ performance. In addition to the code of conduct for all members, the first, but by no means exhaustive, test that should be applied when considering a vote of no confidence is: has the minister breached the ministerial code of conduct? The code states on page 1 that ministers are personally responsible for justifying their actions and conduct to the Legislative Assembly.
It is reasonable that serious concerns are raised by the Assembly and explanations sought from and given by ministers for their actions. In examining whether a minister’s actions or inactions warrant a vote of no confidence, or perhaps at times a censure, the Greens look to these codes of conduct as a guide, and the codes assist us in objectively assessing whether or not the conduct of a minister warrants formal criticism from the Assembly or, even more seriously, relief of their ministerial responsibilities. The most serious aspects of these codes are those regarding matters of corruption, as such actions can severely breach the public’s confidence in our system of parliament. But a case of corruption is not what has been drawn to our attention today.
I have attempted to distil a number of the tests based directly on the text of the codes. The tests differ in their generality. For some of them, a breach should clearly effect withdrawal of responsibility while, for others, further context may be required before a determination can be made.
The most relevant tests for today’s debate are as follows: did the action bring the Assembly into disrepute or damage public confidence in the system of government or public sector management? Did the minister wilfully or knowingly mislead the Assembly in respect of her ministerial responsibilities? Has the minister fully and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video