Module Two: How do we understand public value?
TOPIC 2.2: What is Ministerial Responsibility?
Exploring the convention
It may be too trite to say government succeeds when it responds appropriately to the needs of its constituents, but it is broadly true. As you have noticed from your reading so far, it is a vexed question for the public servant with values calling upon the service to be independent, professional and merit based; a political environment demanding response; and, a Minister being ultimately accountable through the idea of individual responsibility. It might appear you could provide ‘dumb’ advice and get away ‘scot free’. The following topic examines the modern convention of collective and individual responsibility of cabinet members.
One of the tenets of the Westminster system is the convention of ministerial responsibility. When Ministers meet in Cabinet, their discussion is confidential. It is argued that confidentiality ensures the ability to discuss the un-discussable, free from political fallout.
The second aspect is the convention that Cabinet solidarity is essential, meaning that the whole Cabinet acts in concert with the decisions made by the Cabinet, and individuals do not criticise the decision outside the cabinet room. This is “collective responsibility” and ensures ideas are publicly supported and promoted by all ministers.
The third aspect is that each Minister is responsible for the actions of their Department (portfolio) and, in the event of mismanagement, must resign or accept some other penalty, such as reduced portfolio responsibilities. In recent times, this is considered to be more in the notion than in the breach because of the growing complexity and scale of their Departments. Resignation today appears to happen mostly where personal blame cannot be avoided or where there is an issue of improper behaviour by the minister.
Any unwillingness of ministers to honour the Westminster convention, has an impact on reducing public trust in government and contributed to calls to introduce a Federal anti-corruption body, which eventually began work in mid-2023. Examples such as the ‘sports rorts’ and ‘car park rorts’ program funding decisions prior to an election have been seen to advantage government held electorates and have raised questions about ministerial propriety and the effective allocation of public resources.
Required
10 minutes
Background Reading
Snape, J. (2020). What’s all this talk about sports grants? The whole saga explained. ABC News (Online).
In February 2022, Senator Bridget McKenzie left the federal Cabinet over the so-called Sports Rorts scandal, which began after the Australian National Audit Office released a “scathing” report on the role of her office in the Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program. Following weeks of pressure, she finally resigned over a narrow technical conflict of interest. Once you have watched the news clip (above) consider the following questions and record your thoughts in your journal. (A backgrounder piece is provided, above, if you need a refresher on the story).
- Should Senator McKenzie have left Cabinet after the ANAO’s “scathing” report about her office’s role in the program as a whole rather than waiting for a more legalistic and narrow conflict of interest to come to light?
- Should the Prime Minister have been more assertive in upholding standards when Senator McKenzie didn’t resign?
- Would the system be better if there was an independently enforceable Ministerial Code of Conduct, as there is in some other countries?
Recommended
30 min
The following reading by Mulgan (2012) discusses the definitions of Ministerial Responsibility and uses the ill-fated Home Insulation Scheme (HIM) to demonstrate how it is played out in the modern era.