On ministerial responsibility

By Simon Longstaff

This article was published in Living Ethics: issue 64 winter 2006

While those in government rarely pass up an opportunity to claim responsibility for things that go right, it is also common in the political world for individuals in positions of authority to plead ignorance as a valid defence. Simon Longstaff questions why the standard expected of ministers should be any different from that expected of ordinary citizens.

In recent months, a number of people have been drawing a contrast between Winston Churchill's sense of responsibility and that of Australia's current political leaders. Many have chosen the Prime Minister, John Howard, as the focal point for comparison. One can understand the rhetorical force of this – especially given that the Prime Minister admits a considerable admiration for his British predecessor. However, to the extent that any comparison is meant to be critical, then it is not fair to single out Mr Howard alone. The issue of responsibility – and especially ministerial responsibility – ought to be asked of all members of our federal and state governments, irrespective of their party affiliation.

Having learned of the fall, to Japan, of the supposedly impregnable fortress of Singapore during the Second World War – and of the fatal flaw in its defences, Churchill offered an apology in these terms: “I did not know. I was not told. I should have asked”.

The first two of these sentences have been common utterances issuing from the mouths of those who govern us. When things go right, nearly everyone involved can be found in place to claim their share of the credit. No minister ever seems to be absent from or to forget those key moments when the public good is advanced. However, the moment something goes wrong (seriously wrong), then the limits of ministerial knowledge are revealed to a somewhat bewildered public.

“I did not know. I was not told” has become a somewhat too familiar refrain from those entrusted with public power to govern in our name. The third sentence, “I should have asked” is stark in its absence.

A few questions emerge from the distinction between Churchill's acceptance of responsibility for what he did not do and our current leaders’ apparent indifference to their responsibility for being ignorant. First, does it matter that Australian ministers of the Crown do not seem to know about matters of vital significance to the nation? Second, is failure to ask a failure of duty? Third, is it appropriate for the standard expected of ministers to be different from that which applies to ordinary citizens?

Before proceeding to consider each of these questions, it is important to note that this discussion is not primarily directed at assessing the role of ministers in the AWB Oil for Food scandal (currently under consideration by Royal Commissioner Cole). I mention this in passing because the evidence suggests that at some point at least the Minister for Foreign Affairs did ask ... and received what now seem to be some rather weak answers based on cursory examination. In turn, this raises a somewhat different question about who is ultimately responsible for the well-intentioned but ineffective actions of public servants – if not the Minister. But back to the main issue ...

Ultimately able to determine the shape and content of the Constitution, Australian citizens are the original source of all power and authority in the land. The exercise of this power and authority by the Crown, through its ministers, must be accountable. Apart from the device of regular elections, the formal mechanism for ensuring accountability is Parliament, where the representatives of the citizens meet to deliberate, enact laws and scrutinise the activities of government.

Backbenchers – even those belonging to the party or parties in power – are not part of the government (even if they would like to think otherwise). Only the Crown, its ministers and those to whom they delegate authority to act form the government. Only ministers, drawn from the ranks of Members of Parliament, can provide a ‘human bridge’ between the legislature and the executive – the links in a chain of accountability. So, if they do not know what is going on, we are in deep trouble.

Of course, there is no way in which a single person can actually know every detail of what is done within the public service. However, our system of democratic, accountable government depends on the convention that they do. If ignorance is an excuse, then our constitution is in crisis. Seen in this light, a failure to ask is a failure of duty – precisely because it really does matter that our government knows what it is doing. When ministers say, “I was not told, I did not know” in this constitutional context it can hardly be counted as an excuse – in fact, they are condemned by their own admission.

Some will argue (almost from common sense) that it is unfair to mere mortals that they should be held accountable to such a standard. However, the system demands this for the sake of us all. Accepting responsibility (even an unfair burden of responsibility) may be part of what it means to govern in a democracy; to serve the common good.

Left as things are, there is just too much temptation in the system for basically good people to engage in basically dishonest practices, such as 'tactical ignorance’ – in which an explicit request for information is countermanded by a stronger implicit instruction not to tell.

This is perfectly understandable in the rather unforgiving world of politics in which there is little room allowed for genuine errors to be made, admitted and forgiven. Instead, the natural tendency for self-preservation and the ‘outsourcing’ of judgement about personal responsibility to premiers and prime ministers has seen ministers develop innovations such as the most recent attempt to record ignorance. I am told that, at the Commonwealth level at least, files sent to ministers can now be marked officially as, “Not Read By The Minister”.