❓ A parliamentary question addresses ministerial responsibility regarding the abuse of children in state care. The Premier acknowledges ministerial responsibility but deflects blame for individual cases, arguing against resignation for every departmental failing.
AnsweredQoN 535Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
I refer to the definition of ministerial responsibility provided by the Commission on Government that a minister is directly responsible to Parliament for everything that occurs in his or her portfolio and is obliged to resign over any serious maladministration. (1) Does the Premier support the principle of ministerial responsibility? (2) If yes, is the former Minister for Community Development responsible to this Parliament for more than 100 children who were sexually, physically and emotionally abused and neglected when in the care and protection of the state while she was the minister? (3) If no to (2), who is responsible and accountable to this Parliament for the maladministration of the Department for Community Development that led to the abuse of these vulnerable children? Mr A.J. CARPENTER
I refer to the definition of ministerial responsibility provided by the Commission on Government that a minister is directly responsible to Parliament for everything that occurs in his or her portfolio and is obliged to resign over any serious maladministration. (1) Does the Premier support the principle of ministerial responsibility? (2) If yes, is the former Minister for Community Development responsible to this Parliament for more than 100 children who were sexually, physically and emotionally abused and neglected when in the care and protection of the state while she was the minister? (3) If no to (2), who is responsible and accountable to this Parliament for the maladministration of the Department for Community Development that led to the abuse of these vulnerable children? Mr A.J. CARPENTER
AnswerView source ↗
(1) Yes. (2)-(3) The minister is responsible for the activities of the department; there is no question about that. The government is broadly responsible for the activities of all its government departments. However, to sheet home to the minister the blame for individual circumstances that occurred in the interaction between people when, in this case, the Department for Community Development and caseworkers were involved, is completely and utterly beyond the realistic expectations of the code. If the minister resigned every time a child who had been, or was in contact with, the Department for Community Development died, there would be a succession of ministers. There would not have been a minister in Western Australia in that portfolio who would not have been forced to resign. That is the bottom line. We have portrayed here a preposterous circumstance; that the minister somehow or other is directly responsible for each and every individual case and the outcome of those cases. That is the proposition being put forward. I am reluctant to say this, but Mrs Jakins made it perfectly clear that she did not expect either Jane Brazier or the minister to resign because of the tragic circumstances of that case. If the member for Churchlands has an argument with that point of view - I do not - I suggest she take it up with her.
(1) Does the Premier support the principle of ministerial responsibility? (2) If yes, is the former Minister for Community Development responsible to this Parliament for more than 100 children who were sexually, physically and emotionally abused and neglected when in the care and protection of the state while she was the minister? (3) If no to (2), who is responsible and accountable to this Parliament for the maladministration of the Department for Community Development that led to the abuse of these vulnerable children? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1) Yes. (2)-(3) The minister is responsible for the activities of the department; there is no question about that. The government is broadly responsible for the activities of all its government departments. However, to sheet home to the minister the blame for individual circumstances that occurred in the interaction between people when, in this case, the Department for Community Development and caseworkers were involved, is completely and utterly beyond the realistic expectations of the code. If the minister resigned every time a child who had been, or was in contact with, the Department for Community Development died, there would be a succession of ministers. There would not have been a minister in Western Australia in that portfolio who would not have been forced to resign. That is the bottom line. We have portrayed here a preposterous circumstance; that the minister somehow or other is directly responsible for each and every individual case and the outcome of those cases. That is the proposition being put forward. I am reluctant to say this, but Mrs Jakins made it perfectly clear that she did not expect either Jane Brazier or the minister to resign because of the tragic circumstances of that case. If the member for Churchlands has an argument with that point of view - I do not - I suggest she take it up with her.
(2) If yes, is the former Minister for Community Development responsible to this Parliament for more than 100 children who were sexually, physically and emotionally abused and neglected when in the care and protection of the state while she was the minister? (3) If no to (2), who is responsible and accountable to this Parliament for the maladministration of the Department for Community Development that led to the abuse of these vulnerable children? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1) Yes. (2)-(3) The minister is responsible for the activities of the department; there is no question about that. The government is broadly responsible for the activities of all its government departments. However, to sheet home to the minister the blame for individual circumstances that occurred in the interaction between people when, in this case, the Department for Community Development and caseworkers were involved, is completely and utterly beyond the realistic expectations of the code. If the minister resigned every time a child who had been, or was in contact with, the Department for Community Development died, there would be a succession of ministers. There would not have been a minister in Western Australia in that portfolio who would not have been forced to resign. That is the bottom line. We have portrayed here a preposterous circumstance; that the minister somehow or other is directly responsible for each and every individual case and the outcome of those cases. That is the proposition being put forward. I am reluctant to say this, but Mrs Jakins made it perfectly clear that she did not expect either Jane Brazier or the minister to resign because of the tragic circumstances of that case. If the member for Churchlands has an argument with that point of view - I do not - I suggest she take it up with her.
(3) If no to (2), who is responsible and accountable to this Parliament for the maladministration of the Department for Community Development that led to the abuse of these vulnerable children? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1) Yes. (2)-(3) The minister is responsible for the activities of the department; there is no question about that. The government is broadly responsible for the activities of all its government departments. However, to sheet home to the minister the blame for individual circumstances that occurred in the interaction between people when, in this case, the Department for Community Development and caseworkers were involved, is completely and utterly beyond the realistic expectations of the code. If the minister resigned every time a child who had been, or was in contact with, the Department for Community Development died, there would be a succession of ministers. There would not have been a minister in Western Australia in that portfolio who would not have been forced to resign. That is the bottom line. We have portrayed here a preposterous circumstance; that the minister somehow or other is directly responsible for each and every individual case and the outcome of those cases. That is the proposition being put forward. I am reluctant to say this, but Mrs Jakins made it perfectly clear that she did not expect either Jane Brazier or the minister to resign because of the tragic circumstances of that case. If the member for Churchlands has an argument with that point of view - I do not - I suggest she take it up with her.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1) Yes. (2)-(3) The minister is responsible for the activities of the department; there is no question about that. The government is broadly responsible for the activities of all its government departments. However, to sheet home to the minister the blame for individual circumstances that occurred in the interaction between people when, in this case, the Department for Community Development and caseworkers were involved, is completely and utterly beyond the realistic expectations of the code. If the minister resigned every time a child who had been, or was in contact with, the Department for Community Development died, there would be a succession of ministers. There would not have been a minister in Western Australia in that portfolio who would not have been forced to resign. That is the bottom line. We have portrayed here a preposterous circumstance; that the minister somehow or other is directly responsible for each and every individual case and the outcome of those cases. That is the proposition being put forward. I am reluctant to say this, but Mrs Jakins made it perfectly clear that she did not expect either Jane Brazier or the minister to resign because of the tragic circumstances of that case. If the member for Churchlands has an argument with that point of view - I do not - I suggest she take it up with her.
(1) Yes. (2)-(3) The minister is responsible for the activities of the department; there is no question about that. The government is broadly responsible for the activities of all its government departments. However, to sheet home to the minister the blame for individual circumstances that occurred in the interaction between people when, in this case, the Department for Community Development and caseworkers were involved, is completely and utterly beyond the realistic expectations of the code. If the minister resigned every time a child who had been, or was in contact with, the Department for Community Development died, there would be a succession of ministers. There would not have been a minister in Western Australia in that portfolio who would not have been forced to resign. That is the bottom line. We have portrayed here a preposterous circumstance; that the minister somehow or other is directly responsible for each and every individual case and the outcome of those cases. That is the proposition being put forward. I am reluctant to say this, but Mrs Jakins made it perfectly clear that she did not expect either Jane Brazier or the minister to resign because of the tragic circumstances of that case. If the member for Churchlands has an argument with that point of view - I do not - I suggest she take it up with her.
(2)-(3) The minister is responsible for the activities of the department; there is no question about that. The government is broadly responsible for the activities of all its government departments. However, to sheet home to the minister the blame for individual circumstances that occurred in the interaction between people when, in this case, the Department for Community Development and caseworkers were involved, is completely and utterly beyond the realistic expectations of the code. If the minister resigned every time a child who had been, or was in contact with, the Department for Community Development died, there would be a succession of ministers. There would not have been a minister in Western Australia in that portfolio who would not have been forced to resign. That is the bottom line. We have portrayed here a preposterous circumstance; that the minister somehow or other is directly responsible for each and every individual case and the outcome of those cases. That is the proposition being put forward. I am reluctant to say this, but Mrs Jakins made it perfectly clear that she did not expect either Jane Brazier or the minister to resign because of the tragic circumstances of that case. If the member for Churchlands has an argument with that point of view - I do not - I suggest she take it up with her.
(1) Does the Premier support the principle of ministerial responsibility? (2) If yes, is the former Minister for Community Development responsible to this Parliament for more than 100 children who were sexually, physically and emotionally abused and neglected when in the care and protection of the state while she was the minister? (3) If no to (2), who is responsible and accountable to this Parliament for the maladministration of the Department for Community Development that led to the abuse of these vulnerable children? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1) Yes. (2)-(3) The minister is responsible for the activities of the department; there is no question about that. The government is broadly responsible for the activities of all its government departments. However, to sheet home to the minister the blame for individual circumstances that occurred in the interaction between people when, in this case, the Department for Community Development and caseworkers were involved, is completely and utterly beyond the realistic expectations of the code. If the minister resigned every time a child who had been, or was in contact with, the Department for Community Development died, there would be a succession of ministers. There would not have been a minister in Western Australia in that portfolio who would not have been forced to resign. That is the bottom line. We have portrayed here a preposterous circumstance; that the minister somehow or other is directly responsible for each and every individual case and the outcome of those cases. That is the proposition being put forward. I am reluctant to say this, but Mrs Jakins made it perfectly clear that she did not expect either Jane Brazier or the minister to resign because of the tragic circumstances of that case. If the member for Churchlands has an argument with that point of view - I do not - I suggest she take it up with her.
(2) If yes, is the former Minister for Community Development responsible to this Parliament for more than 100 children who were sexually, physically and emotionally abused and neglected when in the care and protection of the state while she was the minister? (3) If no to (2), who is responsible and accountable to this Parliament for the maladministration of the Department for Community Development that led to the abuse of these vulnerable children? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1) Yes. (2)-(3) The minister is responsible for the activities of the department; there is no question about that. The government is broadly responsible for the activities of all its government departments. However, to sheet home to the minister the blame for individual circumstances that occurred in the interaction between people when, in this case, the Department for Community Development and caseworkers were involved, is completely and utterly beyond the realistic expectations of the code. If the minister resigned every time a child who had been, or was in contact with, the Department for Community Development died, there would be a succession of ministers. There would not have been a minister in Western Australia in that portfolio who would not have been forced to resign. That is the bottom line. We have portrayed here a preposterous circumstance; that the minister somehow or other is directly responsible for each and every individual case and the outcome of those cases. That is the proposition being put forward. I am reluctant to say this, but Mrs Jakins made it perfectly clear that she did not expect either Jane Brazier or the minister to resign because of the tragic circumstances of that case. If the member for Churchlands has an argument with that point of view - I do not - I suggest she take it up with her.
(3) If no to (2), who is responsible and accountable to this Parliament for the maladministration of the Department for Community Development that led to the abuse of these vulnerable children? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1) Yes. (2)-(3) The minister is responsible for the activities of the department; there is no question about that. The government is broadly responsible for the activities of all its government departments. However, to sheet home to the minister the blame for individual circumstances that occurred in the interaction between people when, in this case, the Department for Community Development and caseworkers were involved, is completely and utterly beyond the realistic expectations of the code. If the minister resigned every time a child who had been, or was in contact with, the Department for Community Development died, there would be a succession of ministers. There would not have been a minister in Western Australia in that portfolio who would not have been forced to resign. That is the bottom line. We have portrayed here a preposterous circumstance; that the minister somehow or other is directly responsible for each and every individual case and the outcome of those cases. That is the proposition being put forward. I am reluctant to say this, but Mrs Jakins made it perfectly clear that she did not expect either Jane Brazier or the minister to resign because of the tragic circumstances of that case. If the member for Churchlands has an argument with that point of view - I do not - I suggest she take it up with her.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: (1) Yes. (2)-(3) The minister is responsible for the activities of the department; there is no question about that. The government is broadly responsible for the activities of all its government departments. However, to sheet home to the minister the blame for individual circumstances that occurred in the interaction between people when, in this case, the Department for Community Development and caseworkers were involved, is completely and utterly beyond the realistic expectations of the code. If the minister resigned every time a child who had been, or was in contact with, the Department for Community Development died, there would be a succession of ministers. There would not have been a minister in Western Australia in that portfolio who would not have been forced to resign. That is the bottom line. We have portrayed here a preposterous circumstance; that the minister somehow or other is directly responsible for each and every individual case and the outcome of those cases. That is the proposition being put forward. I am reluctant to say this, but Mrs Jakins made it perfectly clear that she did not expect either Jane Brazier or the minister to resign because of the tragic circumstances of that case. If the member for Churchlands has an argument with that point of view - I do not - I suggest she take it up with her.
(1) Yes. (2)-(3) The minister is responsible for the activities of the department; there is no question about that. The government is broadly responsible for the activities of all its government departments. However, to sheet home to the minister the blame for individual circumstances that occurred in the interaction between people when, in this case, the Department for Community Development and caseworkers were involved, is completely and utterly beyond the realistic expectations of the code. If the minister resigned every time a child who had been, or was in contact with, the Department for Community Development died, there would be a succession of ministers. There would not have been a minister in Western Australia in that portfolio who would not have been forced to resign. That is the bottom line. We have portrayed here a preposterous circumstance; that the minister somehow or other is directly responsible for each and every individual case and the outcome of those cases. That is the proposition being put forward. I am reluctant to say this, but Mrs Jakins made it perfectly clear that she did not expect either Jane Brazier or the minister to resign because of the tragic circumstances of that case. If the member for Churchlands has an argument with that point of view - I do not - I suggest she take it up with her.
(2)-(3) The minister is responsible for the activities of the department; there is no question about that. The government is broadly responsible for the activities of all its government departments. However, to sheet home to the minister the blame for individual circumstances that occurred in the interaction between people when, in this case, the Department for Community Development and caseworkers were involved, is completely and utterly beyond the realistic expectations of the code. If the minister resigned every time a child who had been, or was in contact with, the Department for Community Development died, there would be a succession of ministers. There would not have been a minister in Western Australia in that portfolio who would not have been forced to resign. That is the bottom line. We have portrayed here a preposterous circumstance; that the minister somehow or other is directly responsible for each and every individual case and the outcome of those cases. That is the proposition being put forward. I am reluctant to say this, but Mrs Jakins made it perfectly clear that she did not expect either Jane Brazier or the minister to resign because of the tragic circumstances of that case. If the member for Churchlands has an argument with that point of view - I do not - I suggest she take it up with her.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.