Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4755 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

Mr Speaker, those opposite have totally rejected the claim that there is any capacity to improve the way we operate in the Assembly. I think this shows categorically that we can make incremental change, that we can come up with different ways of operating that mean the Assembly operates more as a whole than as an Executive and the rest of the Assembly. Mr Speaker, we have been complying with the spirit of this legislation for some time, but we are very happy to support this means of formalising the current agreements.

MR WHITECROSS (4.21): Labor will be supporting this Bill. The Bill that Mr Moore has put before the Assembly seeks to effect a cultural change in the way the Executive treats the legislature by imposing an obligation on the Executive to inform members of the legislature of negotiations taking place between the ACT and the States. The Bill seeks to ensure open, accountable and transparent government. Similar to the Statutory Appointments Act, the Administration (Interstate Agreements) Bill seeks to impose a requirement on Ministers to consult with the appropriate Assembly committee over the negotiations.

It is important to note, Mr Speaker, that the Minister is never to be hamstrung by the committee. Whilst there is a requirement to receive advice back from the committee before interstate agreements may be signed, if the committee fails to advise the Minister of its views within seven days, the Minister is able to do whatever he or she deems appropriate. Importantly, if the Minister judges that it is in the public interest that a particular issue remain confidential or it is urgent, the Minister does not have to comply with all the requirements of the Act. There is a schedule of specific exemptions in relation to the National Crime Authority and the Loan Council. I would also suggest that there may be many other occasions on which some level of urgency may apply, as I think the Government has, too.

I think the point that Mr Moore is making with this Bill is an important one: Members of the Assembly should be informed as far as possible that negotiations are being undertaken over certain issues. Members also should be informed of the outcome of negotiations. By setting out these requirements, the legislature is ensuring that it is never surprised by the Executive - perhaps not quite that, Mr Speaker, but not ambushed by the Executive - in relation to interstate agreements.

The doctrine of the separation of powers does recognise that the Executive manages government, the legislature operates as a check and balance on the Executive, and the judiciary acts as the keeper of the rule of law. While some may argue that Mr Moore's Bill seeks to override the doctrine of the separation of powers, it is Labor's view that what the Bill seeks to do is to ensure as far as possible a system of transparency and accountability, providing another check and balance on the Executive. I think this is important, especially as the ACT Legislative Assembly has a long history of minority government. From that point of view, it is essential for the opposition and minor parties who have influence over decisions in the Assembly to be informed as far as possible about issues that the government of the day is seeking to address. For those reasons, Mr Speaker, we will be supporting the legislation.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .