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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Tuesday, 10 February 2004) . . Page.. 63 ..

MR SMYTH (Leader of the Opposition) (3.59): Mr Speaker, in speaking to this matter of public importance I think it is important that we as an Assembly state quite clearly what we understand to be the notion of ministerial responsibility. In the absence of the Chief Minister’s code of conduct for his ministers—something which was to be completed, I think, by March 2002 and which the media were told several weeks ago was available for access; “It’s just at the printer”—I think it is important that we in this place have an understanding of what this means and what we understand to be the responsibilities and the outcomes for each minister.

Mr Speaker, ministerial responsibility is the central principle of the Westminster system. Equally and importantly, it is central to the ethical standards required for leadership. There are two components of ministerial responsibility: the collective, that of the cabinet, and the individual. Collective ministerial responsibility is where a minister agrees to abide by a cabinet decision even though he or she may have disagreed with a policy proposal before it went to cabinet for consideration. Individual ministerial responsibility is where a minister takes responsibility for the performance of his or her department and is expected to give account in this Assembly of matters relating to his or her department, such as recent events or policy changes.

Mr Speaker, ministerial responsibility is the cornerstone of our system of government. It ensures that the government remains accountable to the Assembly and, ultimately, to the people of Canberra. It is about trust and it is about credibility. Traditionally, collective ministerial responsibility means that members of the government must support agreed government policies or resign. Further, if the government is defeated on a motion of no confidence in the Chief Minister, all ministers must resign from their ministries. This convention is the key to having a properly functioning cabinet system.

Point 1 of the 2001 ministerial code in the UK—you have to go to other sources because we do not know what this Chief Minister’s ministerial code is—provides that ministers must uphold the principle of collective responsibility. Our own federal government outlines the principles of collective responsibility in its cabinet handbook. It provides that decisions are reached collectively and, other than in exceptional circumstances, bind all ministers to decisions of the government. The exceptional circumstances are where a minister was not present at the discussions and considers that there were problems with the decision of which cabinet was unaware and may seek to have the issue reopened. All ministers must give their support in public debate to decisions of the government.

The Stanhope government’s cabinet handbook provides:

The Convention of the collective responsibility of Ministers for Government decisions is central to the Cabinet system of government.

It continues:

Cabinet decisions reflect collective conclusions and are binding on cabinet ministers as Government policy both outside the Party and within. All Ministers are expected to give their support in public debate to decisions of the Government. This convention is based on the proceedings of Cabinet being private and Ministers providing to their colleagues adequate notice of matters to be raised in Cabinet.

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