Page 3478 - Week 09 - Thursday, 20 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
in our conduct and that we are subjected to scrutiny of our actions against those standards. The code does not, as I have already noted, create those standards of behaviour. They are well-understood features of all Australian jurisdictions; they build on long-accepted and in some senses unremarkable conventions about the proper use of public money, the nature of ministerial office and principles of probity, fairness, transparency and accountability.
These fundamental principles are also usefully articulated in other documents like the Latimer House principles, but they exist without them. At the most basic level, they are simply the right and proper thing to do. The ACT’s code of conduct sits comfortably alongside similar documents in other Australian jurisdictions. It is properly focused on our own jurisdiction, but reflects the nature of the fundamental principles of Westminster democracy that it ultimately embodies. It traverses similar ground and articulates equivalent obligations.
The government remains committed to the highest standards of openness, honesty and accountability in the governance of the ACT. The code of conduct for ministers forms an important part of the environment in which we all operate. In its articulation of what are accepted and appropriate standards of behaviour, it serves an important purpose in supporting good government in the ACT.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (3.40): The ACT Greens place great importance on the scrutiny of the conduct of ministers and, indeed, all members of the Assembly and their staff. I would like to back up Ms Gallagher’s comments on the Latimer House principles and also the other sorts of accountability and transparency measures that were included in the Labor-Greens parliamentary agreement. The first half of that document is all about parliamentary reform and the importance of transparency and accountability. I also wish to reflect on the tabling of the report this morning on the evaluation and implementation of the Latimer House principles.
It is because of the position that ministers hold—and that is one of considerable privilege and discretionary power—that they must ensure their strict compliance with a code of conduct and are accountable for the decisions they make. Under the code of conduct that exists for ministers of the ACT Assembly, ministers are required to uphold the law and the system of government. They hold some of the highest positions of trust within the ACT, which have been bestowed on them by the Legislative Assembly and the people of Canberra.
The code recognises that ministers are responsible for decisions that can have a marked impact on individuals and groups in the community. For these reasons, it emphasises that ministers must accept standards of conduct of the highest order. In all matters there is a need for transparency, fairness and logical decision making to ensure that, despite being charged with significant responsibility, the decisions they make reflect the trust that has been placed in them.
It is vital that ministers do not by their conduct undermine public confidence in themselves or bring discredit to the government or the Assembly. They are expected to act at all times according to the highest standards of probity, accountability, honesty, integrity and diligence in the exercise of their public duties. While it is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .