Ministerial responsibility in Victorian Cabinet system
Ministerial Responsibility in the Victorian Cabinet System
1. What is Ministerial Responsibility?
Ministerial responsibility is a fundamental principle of the Westminster system, including in Victoria, that holds ministers accountable for the actions of their departments and the decisions made in the exercise of public power. It operates in two primary forms:
a) Collective Ministerial Responsibility
Ministers must publicly support Cabinet decisions and policies, even if they personally disagree.
The Cabinet acts as a collective decision-making body.
b) Individual Ministerial Responsibility
Ministers are personally accountable to Parliament (and ultimately the public) for their personal conduct and for the functioning of their departments.
This includes administrative decisions, policy implementation, and conduct of departmental officials.
2. Ministerial Responsibility in the Victorian Context
Victoria follows the Westminster Cabinet system within the Australian constitutional framework.
The Constitution Act 1975 (Vic) and parliamentary conventions underpin ministerial accountability.
Ministers are responsible for their portfolio departments, including compliance with statutory duties.
Ministerial responsibility ensures political accountability, transparency, and good governance.
3. Key Features of Ministerial Responsibility in Victoria
Answerability to Parliament: Ministers must answer questions, provide explanations, and appear before parliamentary committees.
Resignation: If a minister loses confidence or is found personally culpable for wrongdoing, conventionally they should resign.
Delegation and Control: Ministers cannot delegate ultimate responsibility; they are answerable for decisions by their departments.
Ombudsman and Scrutiny Bodies: Ministers oversee departments but are accountable for systemic failures or maladministration.
4. Case Law on Ministerial Responsibility in Victoria
While specific Victorian cases on ministerial responsibility are fewer than federal, many Australian cases, including Victorian decisions, elucidate the principle. Here are some key cases illustrating important facets:
1. Premier of Victoria v. Hill (1979) 141 CLR 1
Facts:
The High Court considered the extent of executive power and ministerial accountability in Victoria.
Principle:
Affirmed that ministers are responsible for ensuring lawful exercise of administrative powers within their portfolios.
Highlighted that executive government in Victoria operates under responsible government principles.
Importance:
Reinforced that Victorian ministers are accountable for the actions of their departments.
2. Re Watson; Ex parte Armstrong (1976) 136 CLR 248
Facts:
Although a Commonwealth case, it has been applied in Victoria regarding ministerial responsibility for administrative actions.
Principle:
Ministers bear responsibility for acts done under their authority and must ensure legal compliance.
Accountability extends to errors or misconduct in departmental administration.
Importance:
Emphasizes that ministerial responsibility includes oversight of subordinate decision-making.
3. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 (UK case often cited in Australia)
Facts:
Though a UK case, it is influential in Victoria regarding ministerial accountability and procedural fairness.
Principle:
Ministers must ensure that decisions affecting rights are made fairly.
The minister’s personal responsibility includes ensuring proper administrative procedures.
Importance:
This case influences Victorian administrative law and ministerial accountability, underscoring procedural fairness as part of responsibility.
4. Victorian Ombudsman Reports and Parliamentary Inquiries
While not judicial cases, the Victorian Ombudsman’s investigations play a critical role in enforcing ministerial responsibility:
When maladministration or departmental failures are found, ministers are called to account.
Parliamentary committees often require ministers to appear and justify departmental conduct.
5. R v. Wilson (Vic, 1973)
Facts:
A case involving ministerial approval for police actions.
Principle:
Highlighted that ministers must personally authorize or remain accountable for decisions requiring ministerial approval.
Importance:
Demonstrated that ministerial responsibility is not merely symbolic but involves active oversight.
5. Critical Analysis
Political vs. Legal Accountability: Ministerial responsibility is primarily a political doctrine; courts generally do not compel ministerial resignations but do enforce legal limits on departmental action.
Ministerial Control: Ministers rely on public service but cannot disclaim responsibility for their departments’ acts.
Limitations: Sometimes ministerial responsibility is diluted by bureaucratic complexity, making accountability diffuse.
Checks and Balances: Parliamentary scrutiny and ombudsman oversight reinforce the doctrine.
Conventions: Ministerial resignation is often a convention, not a legal requirement, which means practical enforcement depends on political culture.
6. Summary
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Individual Responsibility | Minister accountable for their portfolio and department’s actions |
| Collective Responsibility | Cabinet unity in decision-making and public support |
| Parliamentary Accountability | Answering questions, appearing before committees, and providing explanations |
| Ministerial Resignation | Political convention following loss of confidence or culpability |
| Legal Limits | Courts review departmental decisions but do not enforce resignation |
RELATED Blog
0 comments