accountability of the executive through individual + collective ministerial responsibility

the executive

3 types

• cxal (King, GG + FEC)

• political (PM, Cabinet + Outer Ministry)

• administrative (public servants + political advisors)

has the power to carry out laws by developing policy + implementing statute

accountability of the executive

requires that all public official (both elected + appointed) should be directly/indirectly answerable to the people

accomplished through a chain of responsibility and WC that flow through it

• PSs are accountable to ministers (via portfolios)

• ministers are accountable to prlt

• prlt is accountable to voters (via elections)

the public service

refers to the Aus govt depts + agencies where staff members are employed under the Public Service Act (1999)

part of the exec arm which provides support to govt to undertake its rs + rs on behalf of the people

roles of the public service (4)

implement policy decisions of govt under control of ministers

provide info + policy advice to ministers

facilitate delivery of programs, regulations + services agreed to by govt

working with delegated legislation

expectations of the PS (4)

politically neutral + impartial

loyal + subordinate to govt

provide advice to ministers to be used in policy formatting

life-long tenure + dedication to the PS dept

strengths of the PS (4)

politically neutral + impartial

has large depts with corporate expertise

politically unpopular advice is willingly given

have tenure like judges → not subject to intimidation

weaknesses of the PS (4)

inflexible → frequent delays in implementing policy

rule driven process + lengthy decision time → public frustration

inefficient + large depts

often is distrust + frustration between PS + govt → can create accountability issues

collective ministerial responsibility

WC of responsible govt

the ability of the govt as a whole to command a majority in the HoR

requires that govt maintains a majority of support in prlt

allows govts to be dismissed in the scenario where they no longer have the confidence of the HoR due to corruption or incompetence

requires cabinet solidarity → united govt front

encourages active scrutiny of govt by prlt

effectiveness in practice limited by prltry procedures + processes controlled by govt

cabinet solidarity

enforces united govt policy position by ministers

any minister who cannot accept + publicly endorse Cab decisions must resign

may be diminished by authority a politician wields within the party OR due to factional allies OR because political cost of removal is too great

e.g. Ed Husic (2023-2025)

• minister for industry + science

• went publicly against govt stance + approach on Israel-Gaza conflict by being highly critical of Israeli govt

• wasn’t immediately removed from Cab due to controversial + fragile nature of the situation → govt feared losing public support

• was removed from frontbench after federal election in 2025

motions of no confidence

prltry tactic used to test level of govt support in the HoR

takes precedence over any other house business

debate follows automatically after a motion is put forth, SOs allocate

• 30mins to PM + LoO

• 20mins to private members

used by the opposition to frustrate the govt + trigger automatic debate to speak at length against the govt + highlight their corruption/incompetence

almost always fail due to party discipline +EDoLH

Fadden minority govt 1941 last successful VoNC

other ways the HoR may withdraw its confidence from govt (3)

defeat a signature govt policy/bill (e.g. Medevac 2019)

amendment/blocking of $ bills

govt may move its own MoNC to test support of the house (e.g. Whitlam after opposition exposed its intention to block $ bills)

evaluation of CMR

rarely successful in removing poorly performing govt as requires a breakdown of prltry discipline

convention does permit opposition to:

• suspend/delay business of the HoR

• engage in lengthy attacks on govt

attacks can highlight

• weaknesses, mismanagement + problems with PS

• can cause govt significant negative public attention

individual ministerial responsibility

WC that hold individual ministers to account for their actions, decisions, behaviour, policy + performance of their dept

ministers must answer to prlt + account for their mistakes

censure motions

motion used to criticise ministers

used to call for a minister’s resignation from prlt on basis of alleged failure to meet required standards of probity + propriety

expected to resign if successful

censure motions in practice

HoR

• unlikely to be successful because of party discipline + EDoLH

• never has been a successful one

Senate

• more potent as is usually hung

• BUT don’t have weight of HoR due to lack of WC

e.g. George Brandis 2015

• attorney general for Abbott Govt

• mislead senate regarding his appointment of the President of the Human Rights Commission

• Senate formally moved censure motion

• damaged his reputation + increased public scrutiny BUT didn’t resign

censure motions in practice in general

establish an expectation of conduct and puts ministers at risk if they fail

pressure can modify ministerial behaviour + motivate PM to consider a minister’s future

are ultimately accountable to the PM rather than to prlt

PM will seek to manage minister in a way that minimises public damage

e.g. Andrew Giles

• served as Minister for Immigration, Citizenship + Multi-cultural Affairs

• received heavy public scrutiny through 2023 - 2024 for handling of NZYQ case + release of detained immigrants

• demoted by PM to outer ministry under Skills + Training portfolio

dorothy dixers

pre-arranged questions asked by govt backbenchers during Q time w/o notice

diminishes prlt’s ability to scrutinise + hold govt to account

strategy for time wasting + distraction

e.g. Alice Jordan Baird (Aug 2025)

• asked PM to update house on how govt is strengthening medicare

• gave Albanese chance to present pre-prepared speech

• also asked if he was aware of any “alternative approaches” (insinuating what the opposition is doing

• gave him an opportunity to criticise the opposition, defeats purpose of Q time