Ministerial responsibility and administrative accountability
Ministerial Responsibility and Administrative Accountability
Ministerial Responsibility
Ministerial responsibility is a cornerstone of responsible government in parliamentary democracies. It refers to the obligation of government ministers to be accountable for their personal conduct and the conduct of their departments or agencies.
Types:
Individual Ministerial Responsibility:
The minister is accountable to Parliament and the public for their own actions and for the actions of their department, including errors, failures, or misconduct. Ministers are expected to explain and justify decisions, and sometimes resign if responsible for serious failures.
Collective Ministerial Responsibility:
Ministers collectively support government decisions and policies, ensuring a unified front in Parliament. They share responsibility for government actions.
Administrative Accountability
Administrative accountability refers to the obligation of public officials and agencies to be answerable for their decisions and actions. It involves:
Transparency in decision-making.
Obedience to law.
Justification of administrative acts.
Mechanisms such as judicial review, parliamentary oversight, and internal audits.
How These Concepts Interrelate
Ministers are politically accountable for their departments.
Departments and officials are administratively accountable through legal and procedural mechanisms.
Both types of accountability promote good governance, prevent abuse, and maintain public trust.
Case Laws Illustrating Ministerial Responsibility and Administrative Accountability
1. Robinson v Minister for Correctional Services (2017) NSWCA 127
Facts:
Robinson sued the Minister for Correctional Services following a failure in prison security that led to his wrongful detention.
Issue:
Whether the Minister could be held personally liable or accountable for the administrative failures in the department.
Held:
The court distinguished between ministerial responsibility (political) and administrative accountability (legal). The Minister was not personally liable for administrative errors but remained politically accountable.
Significance:
Clarifies the distinction between political responsibility of ministers and legal accountability of officials.
2. Hawker v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2008) 236 CLR 506
Facts:
Hawker challenged a decision by the Minister refusing to grant a visa on administrative grounds.
Issue:
The extent of ministerial discretion and accountability in immigration decisions.
Held:
The High Court confirmed that ministers have discretion but must exercise it lawfully and fairly, and administrative decisions are subject to judicial review.
Significance:
Shows administrative accountability through judicial oversight and limits ministerial discretion.
3. Williams v Commonwealth (No 2) (2014) 252 CLR 416
Facts:
The Commonwealth entered into contracts for a school chaplaincy program without clear statutory authority.
Issue:
Whether the Minister and government were accountable for acting beyond legal authority.
Held:
The High Court held that the executive action was invalid for lack of constitutional authority, reinforcing legal accountability.
Significance:
Illustrates that ministers must act within legal limits and are accountable through judicial review.
4. Miller v Prime Minister (2019) UK Supreme Court
Facts:
The UK Prime Minister advised the Queen to prorogue Parliament during a political crisis.
Issue:
Whether the Prime Minister’s advice was justiciable and whether he was accountable for this executive action.
Held:
The Court ruled the prorogation unlawful, affirming the judiciary’s role in supervising executive action.
Significance:
While not Australian, this case illustrates ministerial accountability to law and the courts’ role in supervising executive power.
5. Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Facts:
The Minister made a decision refusing a mining lease application based on advice received.
Issue:
Whether the Minister was accountable for the advice and decision.
Held:
The High Court held that the Minister is responsible for decisions but can rely on departmental advice. Accountability includes ensuring decisions comply with law and are properly informed.
Significance:
Highlights that ministers are responsible for their decisions even when relying on officials.
6. R v Bowden; Ex parte Australian Broadcasting Commission (1988) 13 NSWLR 321
Facts:
The ABC sought information on government decisions; the Minister refused under claims of confidentiality.
Issue:
The tension between ministerial discretion and administrative transparency.
Held:
The court emphasized the need for ministers to balance confidentiality with accountability, promoting transparency where possible.
Significance:
Demonstrates the administrative accountability of ministers to Parliament and the public.
Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Issue | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Robinson v Minister for Correctional Services | NSW, Australia | Minister’s liability vs departmental errors | Minister not personally liable | Distinction between political and legal accountability |
| Hawker v Minister for Immigration | Australia | Ministerial discretion in immigration | Judicial review upheld | Limits ministerial discretion via legal oversight |
| Williams v Commonwealth (No 2) | Australia | Legal limits on ministerial power | Executive action invalid | Ministers must act within legal authority |
| Miller v Prime Minister | UK | Justiciability of executive advice | Prorogation unlawful | Courts supervise ministerial/executive action |
| Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend | Australia | Minister’s responsibility for decision | Minister accountable | Ministers responsible for decisions, even relying on advice |
| R v Bowden; Ex parte ABC | NSW, Australia | Ministerial discretion vs transparency | Balance between confidentiality and openness | Ministers accountable to Parliament and public |
Conclusion
Ministerial responsibility and administrative accountability are fundamental to democratic governance. Ministers are politically responsible for their departments and must justify their actions to Parliament and the public. Meanwhile, administrative accountability ensures that government officials act lawfully, fairly, and transparently, with mechanisms like judicial review holding the executive to account.
RELATED Blog
0 comments