Page 3833 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 25 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
contacts” obtained during their ministerial tenure to gain placements or positions after their exit from office. The Democrats also called for reform. Their leader said on 18 February 2002 that it was “questionable practice for government ministers to leave office and walk straight into jobs in areas where they have previously been ministers of the Crown”.
In the ACT, of course, with only five ministers and a revolving door on those offices anyway, the areas of responsibility cover a very large field and the range of territory authorities offers a panoply of places, all of which would have in some way been exposed to direct influence of their former positions.
My bill addresses that issue in a reasonable and restrained manner. It does not ban ministers from any job—just those in authorities and corporations directly controlled by the government. Indeed, it does not even ban ministers from those jobs. It just insists there be a mandated cooling-off period between their appointment as ministers and their accepting the new role. This is based on similar models from other jurisdictions, including attempts here in Australia to achieve the same outcome.
The Democrats in 2002 said that they were preparing legislation to require newly retired or defeated ministers to observe a cooling-off period of at least two years before entering into private contracts. Overseas, the imperative to separate ministerial propriety from private gain is enshrined in law in severe terms. In the United States, it is in fact a crime for an employee of the executive branch to be involved in attempts to lobby the government for two years after the termination of their employment.
As a head or senior manager of a territory authority or territory-owned corporation, an ex-minister would be very much involved in lobbying the government on behalf of their new employees. Even the Australian Medical Association has made public comments on this issue. In a release titled “AMA joins call for cooling-off period for ex-ministers’ jobs” the association also called for government ministers to observe a cooling-off period, with the former president stating, “This has to be done in order to ensure the decisions they make as ministers are made in the interests of Australians and not in the interests of the potential client or the minister themselves.”
As I stated earlier, there is a slightly different situation here in the ACT, with so few ministers yet so many authorities from which they can cherry-pick post-ministerial appointments. Make no mistake: it does happen here in the ACT. Bill Wood left office and soon after took up a position at the LDA. Ted Quinlan was appointed to ACTTAB and Rosemary Follett landed a position with the Sentence Administration Board.
Let me make it clear that I am not reflecting on these individuals. I respect each of them. However, it can lead to a perception of jobs for the boys or mates’ rates. It can be unseemly and after careful consideration of all the issues, including the impact on future Liberal governments, it is a practice that we believe should be modified.
My bill does modify this practice. This is a simple, strong bill. It addresses an important issue but does so in moderate terms. It does not prevent a minister from ever taking up a position—just for a reasonable period after leaving office. It imposes
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video