What does ministerial responsibility mean

View all reference entries ». View all related items in Oxford Reference ». Search for: 'ministerial responsibility' in Oxford Reference ». All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single entry from a reference work in OR for personal use for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice.

Oxford Reference. Publications Pages Publications Pages. Recently viewed 0 Save Search. Your current browser may not support copying via this button. Share: Facebook Twitter Email Print page. Whilst the doctrine of individual ministerial responsibility is a constitutional convention. There is no formal mechanism for enforcing it, meaning that today ministers frequently use ignorance of misbehaviour as an argument for lack of culpability.

Opposition parties rarely accept this argument, but it has been found that the electorate can be more accepting. Also, it is extremely rare for such cases ever to be brought to trial. Our subjects Our Subjects. Explore Explore. Contact Contact. As a general rule, the greater the powers granted, the higher the degree of ministerial responsibility which must be demanded. Protection of individual liberty is at the heart of Australian democracy.

When there exist powers that have the capacity to interfere with individual liberty, they should be accompanied by checks and balances sufficient to engender public confidence that those powers are being exercised with integrity. In general, these powers allow the Minister to intervene in various circumstances where the Minister thinks that it is in the public interest to do so.

For example, the Minister is able to intervene personally in visa applications after the Migration Review Tribunal or the Refugee Review Tribunal hands down a decision, where the Minister thinks that it serves the public interest. The report noted that the ministerial discretion powers relating to visa applications were inserted into the Migration Act to 'provide an outlet to deal with difficult cases that did not fit statutory visa criteria' [19]. The report found that the information provided by DIMIA on the use of ministerial discretionary powers in some cases seems 'to raise more questions than they answer, creating room for speculation about [Minister Ruddock's] use of his powers'.

This was often seen to be lacking. Other than this requirement, the powers are non-compellable, non-reviewable and non-delegable. The report found that 'the lack of transparency and accountability of the minister's decision making process is a serious deficiency in need of urgent attention'. The Prime Minister responded:. I indicated last weekend that Ministers should go if they are directly responsible for significant failings, or mistakes or if their continued presence in the Government is damaging to the Government.

I have full confidence in Senator Vanstone. I don't think for a moment in the circumstances of this case either of those conditions arose. The committee believes that senior officials within the department have been captured by the government's own culture.

Further, the committee considers that it is inappropriate for Ministers to hide behind a departmental 'culture' which, in the committee's view, has developed in response to the needs and demands of Ministers Ruddock and Vanstone. The report identified one of the reasons behind this cultural problem was 'the framework within which DIMIA has been required to operate'.

The committee is of the view that it is the responsibility of the relevant department to implement government policy. It must fall upon the department to set up effective management and administrative processes to carry out government policy. However, the committee considers that the Minister must ensure that government policy is being effectively, fairly and humanely implemented, particularly in circumstances where there are such wide-ranging and fundamental policy shifts as have been experienced in immigration policy over the past five years.

The committee is concerned that this did not happen, and that Ministers appear to be seeking to avoid responsibility which is rightly theirs. The Palmer Report notes that the established DIMIA organisational structure and arrangements 'fail to deliver the outcomes required by the government in a way that is firm but fair and respects human dignity'.

It is reasonable to conclude that the problems discussed in the Palmer report were entrenched in DIMIA back in , when the events associated with Vivian began. Since the circumstances of the Alvarez matter first arose in and the Palmer report focused on matters that occurred in , this Inquiry The ministers set the tone, the parameters and the mindset. The officials, senior and otherwise, were merely mechanics trying to read and to respond to what ministers wanted.

Nothing would have changed if the Rau and Alvarez cases had not been exposed.