Inquiry to review ACT election caretaker conventions in wake of health budget row

The now-contentious ACT election caretaker conventions will be scrutinised by a Legislative Assembly committee after all parties and members supported a motion from Greens MLA Andrew Braddock on Wednesday (5 March).

The motion came amid continuing fallout from revelations that Canberra Health Services advised Health Minister Rachel Stephen-Smith’s office that demand was running ahead of funding for the health system only days before pre-poll voting opened for the 19 October election.

Ms Stephen-Smith’s decision not to share this information has rankled with the other parties, especially when it was announced in the Budget Review that the health system needed a $227 million rescue, pushing the ACT’s bottom line to a record deficit of almost a billion dollars.

They argue that the CHS update was material to the state of the budget and the viability of all other parties’ promises.

Canberra Liberals Leader Leanne Castley told the Assembly that Ms Stephen-Smith’s decision was wrong and gave Labor an advantage.

“It meant that voters were making decisions at the election without being fully informed about the Territory’s health or budget position,” she said.

“There is a clear political advantage that Labor has enjoyed because of the secrets it kept from the community.

“That is outrageous. It is unacceptable, and it ought to be unlawful.”

Ms Castley said that if a minister can keep these kinds of secrets from the community in an election without breaching the rules – the caretaker conventions, the ministerial code of conduct or the Assembly code of conduct – then it was time to change the rules.

“That must be the purpose of this inquiry,” she said.

Ms Stephen-Smith argued that the caretaker conventions did not actually cover this particular situation.

“While the guidance on the caretaker conventions cover circumstances where ministers seek advice and are very clear that ministers can both seek and receive factual information in relation to their portfolios as part of their ongoing role as ministers during the caretaker period, the guidance does not cover or is actually silent on what information should be provided proactively to ministers and their staff during the caretaker period,” she said.

Both she and Chief Minister Andrew Barr argued that ministers still carried on with their duties throughout the campaign and after until a new ministry was appointed, and were not merely holding the fort.

Mr Barr said the inquiry should examine the timing of the Pre-election Budget Update, but warned that would also force a change to the current fixed election date.

He said the ACT caretaker period was the longest in the country and posed challenges for governments.

Mr Barr also warned against unintended consequences of tightening the conventions so much that they would lose their flexibility, creating another set of problems.

Mr Braddock said he sought a level playing field for all parties so they had access to critical information during election periods.

He also sought to restore confidence in the apolitical nature of the ACT Public Service.

“Everyone will benefit from this,” Mr Braddock told the Assembly.

“The government, the ACT public service, but most particularly the voters of Canberra, as they can be sure that the ACT public service is entirely free of any perception of political bias.”

Mr Braddock said later that the Greens would chair a Select Committee on caretaker conventions that would examine how these conventions operate and work towards codifying them in the Assembly’s rules.

A key clause of his motion refers to whether further clarity or guidance is needed about what information the ACT public service may provide to ministers and their offices during the caretaker period.

“Its goal is to ensure continuing confidence in the public service remaining impartial and transparent in its interactions with political parties and candidates,” he said.

“In a world where Trumpism seeks to dismantle democratic institutions, we want Australia and the ACT to move in the opposite direction.”