Page 65 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 28 February 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
in House of Representatives Practice—that is, that ministers are accountable to parliament if “the action which stands condemned was theirs, or taken on their direction, or was action with which they obviously ought to have been concerned”. In reaching this conclusion, the Auditor-General drew from a legislative debate in 1999 concerning the Bender coronial inquiry. During that debate, the then Chief Minister, Kate Carnell, said:
The bases of ministerial responsibility are quite clear … If a Minister ignores advice ... the Minister should be out.
Just as telling is what Mr Stefaniak said in the debate I just referred to. He quite clearly put on the record his interpretation of ministerial responsibility. He said:
Indeed, Mr Speaker, when I was last in private practice, I represented the family of someone who died tragically at a hospital because of inattention and some negligence problems that occurred there over the course of a night. Of course Mr Berry should not be held responsible for that, nor should my colleague Mr Moore if a similar situation occurs; and, tragically, they do occur from time to time. Should my colleague the Minister for Urban Services have to resign over a road death caused by the negligence of an ACTION bus driver or the negligence of a Totalcare work crew … Of course not.
He has also said:
At no time in the past 10 years has a Minister had to resign because of the actions of departmental staff. It has been when Ministers have acted improperly or have misled the Assembly that Ministers have been forced to resign or governments have fallen. … Precedent is important, and at no time over the last 10 years has a Minister had to resign because of the actions of departmental staff. It has been when a Minister has acted improperly or has misled the Assembly. Those are the two classic situations where Ministers, governments, Chief Ministers, Premiers or Prime Ministers have been forced to resign …
Traditionally, no minister has had to resign because of the actions of departmental staff. That is simply a fundamental part of the Westminster system. Mr Stefaniak has performed a remarkable about-face in this regard. He now argues that ministers should act contrary to the advice provided to them: that they should second-guess expert advice or, in the extreme, ignore advice and simply rely on—well, I don’t know: instinct or maybe a sixth sense.
In short, ministers, particularly those responsible for regulatory agencies, must make sure that those agencies have the necessary policies and resources to do their job. Then the politicians must get out of the way and let them do it. A key component of the Westminster system is that undue political influence is not imposed on the public service, which ensures that the advice provided to ministers is frank and fearless. In return, ministers must take heed of advice provided. That is most critical in the area of emergency services, where experts must be free from interference in fulfilling their vital operational roles in the community.
Mr Stanhope has been criticised over his comments in the days following the fire—to blame him—and over the decision by the government to join the apprehended bias application along with nine others. In the days following the fire, as everyone
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .