It is more sensible to understand the locus of Ministerial responsibility as lying in the provision of the frameworks and standards surrounding particular programs. In this particular case, it seems that Minister Garrett always responded to advice and sought to make the necessary adjustments. If we are to believe reports, advice from the Department was not always forthcoming or timely. 

More fundamentally, though, the notion of Ministerial responsibility presumes that Departments work in isolation from the rest of government. The insulation scheme, however, is a prime example of how the real source of a problem can be shifted onto those least able to take responsibility. The Department of Environment was never in a position to properly implement the scheme, especially given how much economic activity was to be generated by this particular aspect of the government’s stimulus plan. Garrett was put in an impossible position from the beginning.  

The Westminster notion of Ministerial responsibility is simply out of date. Even if Ministers did resign as per the convention, we would not have more responsible government. Lack of responsibility in government does not have its source in individual Ministers or even in individual governments. Its origin is in the steady erosion of our political institutions’ capacity to be responsible. 

Apart from a brief honeymoon period at the beginning of a term, governments are mostly engaged in “crisis management”. They are desperate to exercise whatever control they can against the constant onslaught of criticism and scrutiny of the opposition and the media. And they do have considerable control over parliament and the bureaucracy. 

The spotlight under which governments are put is supposed to be a central feature of our democracy, a way of “keeping the bastards honest”. But rather than promoting responsibility, it encourages “damage control”.  The Westminster convention sponsors a blame game, whose “resolution” often comes in the kind of mea culpa routine in which Prime Minister Rudd is presently engaging. But the real issues are never brought to light in such soap opera. 

Governments are bound to make mistakes. Policies will inevitably have unintended consequences. The terrain is always changing so it is critical to be able to adjust quickly to new circumstances. In this context, “responsiveness” is a better quality to have than responsibility. Responsiveness is an attribute that applies to the institutions of government as a whole. 

There are many things working against the ability of our political institutions to be responsive. Political parties are less interested in listening to the electorate than in using focus groups to stage-manage public opinion. Bureaucracies have been infected by a culture of fear in place of a collegial approach to public service The short electoral cycle discourages the bipartisan development of policies that respond to long-term issues Political parties are populated by creatures of the political machine rather than by a broad cross-section of the population. Executive control of parliament and the machine’s control over parties repress the ability of MPs to express ideas and opinions. The ability of well-funded interest groups to access and influence high-level political actors comes at the expense of broader democratic input. 

The principle of Ministerial responsibility has become nothing more than a pretext for engaging in the theatre of politics. The actors come and go but what remains is a relentless decline in the capacity of our political institutions to be responsive to the mounting challenge of social and economic problems. 

Dr Martin Leet is Senior Research Officer with the Brisbane Institute. He studied political science at the University of Queensland and was awarded a BA (Hons) and PhD. Over the last ten years, he has taught and researched in the fields of political economy, public policy and political theory. Martin has published two books, as well as numerous journal articles and book reviews. His most recent book, Aftereffects of Knowledge in Modernity (State University of New York Press), examines the ambivalent cultural consequences of the search for knowledge in the modern western world.