2176 Wednesday, 13 May 1992 THE PRESIDENT (Hon Clive Griffiths) wook the Chair at 2.30 pm, and read prayers. LEAVE OF ABSENCE -MONTGOMERY, HON MURRAY On motion by Hon E.J Chariton, resolved - That leave of absence for eight days be granted to Hon Murray Montgomiery (South West) on the ground of parliamentary business overseas. MOTION - STANDING ORDERS DRAFT AMENDMENTS Answers to Questions - Ministeria Responsibility Debate resumed from 12 May. HON GEORGE CASH (North Metropolitan - Leader of the Opposition) [2.40 pm]: I commenced my comments on this motion yesterday but spoke for only a minute owing to the Government's use of Standing Order No 195. Hon Graham Edwards: We thought you covered the matter adequately in that time. Several members interjected. Hon GEORGE CASH: Keep going my friend; we could have a whole hour of this. On 30 August 1989 I moved the following motion in this House - That in the opinion of this House, the Leader of the House, Hon J.M. Berinson, has breached the high standards of integrity, honesty and credibility expected of a Minister of the Crown, by his actions in misleading the House in the provision of certain information in respect to the financial dealings of the Government, and accordingly, this House censures him for not upholding the high standards of integrity, honesty and credibility demanded of a Minister of the Crown. Debate ensued on the motion during which numerous interjections were made on various speakers. In due course the House carried the motion. Emanating from that motion, particularly from some of the interjections to which I will refer in a moment, came a ruling from you, Mr President, relating to ministerial responsibility and the application of the convention related to Ministers' providing answers to questions in a representative capacity. This was because much of the argument put by the Leader of the House in his defence of that motion was founded on the premise that as he had been acting in a representative capacity he should not have to share responsibility for the content of answers provided to this House. Hon Peter Foss yesterday read your ruling to the House, Mr President, which set out clearly that Ministers either act on their own behalf when answering questions about the portfolios to which they have been sworn to administer, or act in a representative capacity when acting on behalf of Ministers in another place, but that they share the same responsibility for answers provided in either capacity. In due course, I think in June 1991, as a result of certain comments made by the Minister for Education, a need again arose for the question of ministerial responsibility for the content of answers to questions to be considered by this House. Members will no doubt recall that in June 1991 by way of a general comment while answering a question in this House the Minister for Education declined to accept responsibility for an answer, saying in part that the Minister for the Environment had provided the information; she believed that any responsibility for it rested with that Minister in the other place. That comment caused considerable debate in this House. As a result of that second incident the question of ministerial responsibility was referred to the Standing Orders Committee. That committee considered the question generally along with the conventions, customs and usage of ministerial responsibility as it applies not only in this House but also in other Westminster-style Parliaments. It tendered a report to the House some time later which included a reference saying that the Standing Orders Committee did nor believe that there was a need to codify or framne a particular Standing Order dealing with [Wednesday, 13 May 19921]17 2177 ministerial responsibility and that the old customs should continue, having regard to your earlier rulings, Mr President. It is clear to me, and I am sure to all other members of this House, that the question of ministerial responsibility is still not fully understood by certain Ministers in this House. It is my view that the way in which certain answers are framed by Ministers in this House, in particular in their representative capacities, is such as to almost contain an implied plea of mitigation for the content of the answers; that is, that the Ministers frname the answers almost in a way to say that if they are wrong, "I really do not want to be held responsible for it because I did not check the answer before providing it to the House." That answer clearly goes against the ruling that you have given, Mr President, on a number of occasions. To emnphasise some Ministers' degree of lack of understanding of their responsibility, I wil quote some interjections that occurred during a speech on a censure motion debate which occurred on Wednesday, 30 August 1989 and which is recorded at page 1346 of Hansard. Hon J.M. Berinson when replying to a motion said - ..The truth of the matter is that Ministers in this House, in most cases, do not even see the replies that are provided by Ministers in the other House whom they represent here;, they go directly into the daily Hansardwithout reference to the Ministers here. Later I interjected - Have you made investigations on your own behalf? I was referring to an answer given by Mr Berinson in a representative capacity. Mr Berinson replied - Yes, I have. I carried out those investigations between 10 minutes to six and six o'clock tonight! I did so in the 10 extra minutes the Leader of the Opposition was gracious enough to allow me after having engaged in a disgraceful exhibition of ambush tactics. For those members who may not have been in the House at the time, that comment was very much a cynical one and should not be interpreted to mean that Mr Berinson had carried out any investigation. He was by way of that cynical comment indicating that he had not had the time to research a particular answer. I later made the following comment, which is recorded on page 1347 of Mansard, when summing up the debate on the censure motion referring to Mr Berinson - He went as far as to say that he did not, at times, even bother to read the answers that came forward as a result of questions on notice, and yet those answers were published. Hon J.M. Berinson then interjected and said - I will go further and say that I almost never do. I replied - I hope that comment will be recorded in Mansard because it goes to the question of irresponsibility shown by the Leader of the House. It goes to the heart of the question of accountability - Hon J.M. Berinson interjected at that stage - It goes to the question of the incapacity to deal with the limitless range of issues. Later during that debate I said - Because the Leader of the House is telling us that he cannot accept any responsibility at all for the content of those answers. Worse than that, the Leader of the House has said tonight that he does not even carry out investigations of the answers tendered in his name. Hon Joe Berinson interjected, "Of course I do." Later I went on to say - I am absolutely astounded that the Leader of the House should try to defend his position in respect of this extremely important motion by saying that he does not accept any responsibility at all for the answers to questions tendered to him by Ministers in another place whom he represents in this House. 2178 [COUNCIL] I wanted to have those comments recorded again in Hansardto set die scene for the complete lack of understanding - or perhaps it is not that. Hon Joe Berinson is a former Federal Minister of the Crown and has been a State Minister of the Crown for nearly a decade, and I give him - a qualified legal person, a Queen's Counsel and the Attorney General - a fair amount of credit for bnowing the real essence and meaning of ministerial responsibility. However, he finds it convenient at times to duck the issue and have that ready self-defence mechanism put in place in case he is caught out on a particular question. Hon DJ. Wordsworth: Of course he knows his responsibilities. Hon GEORGE CASH: I thank the member for his interjection. I know that Hon David Wordsworth, a former Minister of the Crown, recognised what ministerial responsibility was all about when answering questions. More than that, he has had the opportunity of observing Hon Joe Berinson in this House for a longer period than 1, and he has confirmed my comment that Mr Berinson clearly does understand ministerial responsibility in his own mind and in his own heart but sets about building in excuses should he be caught out on die answer to any question he might give in this place. At this stage, when talking about misinformation or less than factual information provided in answers, I should acknowledge that when the Standing Orders Committee considered the question of ministerial responsibility it recognised that there may be times when a Minister, whether acting in a representative capacity or under his own portfolio, provides t House with incorrect information. We are all human and we know that mistakes can occur. We know that Ministers are obliged to rely on the advice of others; that is not unreasonable and it is accepted by the House. However, if a Minister relies on advice tendered by others but satisfies himself that that advice is correct and proper, when the Minister comes into this House and delivers his answer to a question he is no longer delivering the advice of, as was suggested yesterday, the second assistant clerk or the third person in the fourth row of a Government establishment.