Ministerial Responsibility (1 Viewer)

[Generator]

Yet ministers in the Government are confident they will not be directly implicated in the [AWB] affair. The Government's own scouring of the files show there is no document demonstrating any direct ministerial knowledge that the kickbacks were being paid, senior figures in the Government say.

Under the earlier definition of the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, this wouldn't have mattered. According to the text Constitutional and Administrative Law, by E.C.S. Wade and G. Godfrey Phillips - a book that was on Howard's undergraduate reading list - ministerial responsibility requires that "for every act or neglect of his department a minister must answer". So even if ministers didn't know about the bribery, they should still be held responsible for what happened at what was, at the time, a government board.

But Howard has redefined the doctrine. Under his code of ministerial responsibility, "this does not mean that ministers bear individual liability for all actions of their departments. Where they neither knew, nor should have known about, matters of departmental administration which come under scrutiny, it is not unreasonable to expect that the secretary or some other senior officer will take the responsibility."

Source: SMH 2006 (see p. 2)


So, the notion of ministerial responsibility has changed (as all with an interest in the federal arena would know), but has it changed for the better or worse when one considers scandals such as those faced by the immigration department and the AWB? In your opinion, which notion of ministerial responsibility should apply to the current minister? If the issue occurred prior to a recent changing of the guard, should either notion apply to minister at the helm at the time of the problem in question if the then minister still retains a ministerial position? Furthermore, should both ministers be culpable in such an instance?

Discuss away.

---

Edit (8/8/2006): Win at all costs is eroding democracy

Win at all costs is eroding democracy
Matthew Moore Freedom of Information Editor
August 8, 2006


AUSTRALIAN governments are so practised at frustrating the democratic process that legislation is urgently needed to try to make them accountable, a report urges.

Authors of the paper, including a former Liberal speaker of the NSW Parliament, Kevin Rozzoli, and a former Labor speaker from the Victorian Parliament, Ken Coghill, say an ever-growing desire to maintain political advantage has eroded the way democracy operates.

[continued - see link]

What do you think? Should principles regarding government accountability be developed and actually enforced?

Also of interest may be this thread: Senate Committees - Controlling the Agenda

 

[leetom]

For being in a position to know, but nevertheless shunning knowledge creates direct responsibility for the circumstances- from the very beginning.

I liked this quote when I read it last year, I like it more now.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I wouldn't say Howard has redefined the doctrine. Rather he has wrongfully infringed it and in doing so blemished his own government. It's just that the public are so apathetic to these notions that he can get away with it. The average person's priority is on "me" and how much money I have rather than "lofty" (but in reality extremely important) governmental principles which they don't have much knowledge of. Perhaps a modern day lack of education in civics is partially to blame.

PS. Generator, Minai should be in touch with you regarding the switch

 

[Enlightened_One]

Interesting, but I can remember discussing the demise of Ministerial responsibility back in legal studies. It has been so long since even a vestige of ministerial responsibility was apparent that most people have forgotten it once existed.

 

[banco55]

The argument I've heard which makes some sense is that ministerial responsibility is a relic from the days when government and hence government departments were far smaller. If you are say the health minister and have 5000 + employees there's no way you are going to know everything that goes on.

 

[volition]

found some stuff:
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2004/rp04-031.pdf
http://www.australianpolitics.com/executive/ministry/ministerial-guidelines-1998.pdf

 

[Enlightened_One]

The argument I've heard which makes some sense is that ministerial responsibility is a relic from the days when government and hence government departments were far smaller. If you are say the health minister and have 5000 + employees there's no way you are going to know everything that goes on.

But then it comes to the point where ministers simply end up passing the blame, even if they knew (which they usually do to a degree) and some lackey becomes the scapegoat. It all ends up at the point where the minister is nothing more than an untouchable figurehead. If the ministers don't have accountability than why have them at all?
Further, lack of ministerial responsibility often brings the party concerned, and the parliament, into repute. How many people these days take John Howard at his word? He has escaped ministerial responsiblity so many times (remember the fiasco over core and non core information) that only a very niave few in this country believe a word he says.

 

[volition]

I agree, there needs to be some form of accountability for the system to work but it's pretty hard to draw the line. In the case of AWB, if it can be proven that they knew about it, that is clear enough.

Also, we would have to consider whether or not they 'should have' known, and for something as large as this, I think they should have.

 

[transcendent]

Even if the public did at least lodge a verbal or written protest in a major newspaper they'd be labelled 'left wing'. There HAS been anger at the lack of accountability, it's just the public feel powerless to stop it. What can the public do? Protest? See how great an impact that makes? I for one have been against Howard's lack of accountability for years, but over time with nothing done about it I've become quite indifferent to the subject. Nothing's going to happen, he's untouchable. He is emperor of Australia in all but title.

 

[volition]

It seems as though nobody really gives a stuff about this whole AWB scandal, which is a problem

 

[frog12986]

I for one have been against Howard's lack of accountability for years, but over time with nothing done about it I've become quite indifferent to the subject. Nothing's going to happen, he's untouchable. He is emperor of Australia in all but title.

Although, one would be quite ignorant to believe that this 'redefined' notion of ministerial responsibilty is confined to the workings of the federal government. NSW has encountered the same problems in relation to the issue, with ministers and department directors being aboslved for the wrongdoings of 'others' within these departments which are bulging at the seams. Consultation, particularly at the state level, is another similar notion, which has been slowly eroded over the years as the autocratic and indepedent nature of democratic government has emerged..

No longer are politicians elected by the people, for the people, but rather act to prioritise the maintenence of an 'election winning' voter base. Short term thinking has become a major characteristic of this approach whereby bureaucrats and politicians alike, are more concerned about position preservation. Developing the gumption to implement policies that will provide a future direction and tangible results, despite any short-medium term consequences, has effectively become a feature of the past..

 

[erawamai]

Although, one would be quite ignorant to believe that this 'redefined' notion of ministerial responsibilty is confined to the workings of the federal government. NSW has encountered the same problems in relation to the issue, with ministers and department directors being aboslved for the wrongdoings of 'others' within these departments which are bulging at the seams. Consultation, particularly at the state level, is another similar notion, which has been slowly eroded over the years as the autocratic and indepedent nature of democratic government has emerged..

No longer are politicians elected by the people, for the people, but rather act to prioritise the maintenence of an 'election winning' voter base. Short term thinking has become a major characteristic of this approach whereby bureaucrats and politicians alike, are more concerned about position preservation. Developing the gumption to implement policies that will provide a future direction and tangible results, despite any short-medium term consequences, has effectively become a feature of the past..

I think both the state Labor government and the federal liberal government have both enbodied the modern day shift away from active consultation. They tend to consult on those thinktank/bodies which they know will give them the answers they want. Government, as a result, has become sycophantic in nature. Whoes fault is this? Probably the apathetic and largely igornoant public. Modern government treats its constituents as passive consumers and many in the public are happy for it to be this way. They just shoudn't complain when the government doesn't give them what they want. Maybe they should tune out from dancing with the stars and actually pay attention or maybe (!!) care about the state of the world around them.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Ok, so everyone suddenly cares. What now? Vote in the opposition (state or federal) and have them do the same thing?

 

[frog12986]

I think both the state Labor government and the federal liberal government have both enbodied the modern day shift away from active consultation. They tend to consult on those thinktank/bodies which they know will give them the answers they want. Government, as a result, has become sycophantic in nature. Whoes fault is this? Probably the apathetic and largely igornoant public. Modern government treats its constituents as passive consumers and many in the public are happy for it to be this way. They just shoudn't complain when the government doesn't give them what they want. Maybe they should tune out from dancing with the stars and actually pay attention or maybe (!!) care about the state of the world around them.

Definitely...Consultation has become a relic of the past; The Desalination Plant, the fiasco surrounding the Cross City Tunnel Arrangements, Land zoning in Sydney's north-west...each of which were devised without gaining input from community sources. Obviously, as states administer the services provided to the people, consultation is an imperative characteristic...

However that does not absolve responsibility for the federal government to do the same in the expenditure determination process. When a government establishes a healthy, regular surplus, there needs to be greater communication in relation to community needs. More often than not, we've seen tax cuts, welfare bonuses and the like, which do not attempt to practically benefit society but rather, are implemented as part of this 'short-term' agenda which attempts to satisfy political populism. Reform is too difficult and politically unattractive, and the areas of governmental responisbility that desperately need resource injection are either overlooked or provided a band-aid solution i.e. Health, Mental Health, Disability Support and the Tax System..but as you correctly point out, people are more concerned about ridiculous television shows than the state of government services..

 

[xeuyrawp]

Ok, so everyone suddenly cares. What now? Vote in the opposition (state or federal) and have them do the same thing?

Yeah, because as a community, our only power in politics is voting...

 

[Generator]

Win at all costs is eroding democracy

Win at all costs is eroding democracy
Matthew Moore Freedom of Information Editor
August 8, 2006


AUSTRALIAN governments are so practised at frustrating the democratic process that legislation is urgently needed to try to make them accountable, a report urges.

Authors of the paper, including a former Liberal speaker of the NSW Parliament, Kevin Rozzoli, and a former Labor speaker from the Victorian Parliament, Ken Coghill, say an ever-growing desire to maintain political advantage has eroded the way democracy operates.

[continued - see link]

 

[Stott Despoja]

I, uh, did a search and came across this thread, so rather than start a new debate, I thought that I'd just bump this one.

Labor urges PM to act on Santoro's shares 'breach'