Cabinet and ministerial responsibility
⚖️ Cabinet and Ministerial Responsibility
1. Cabinet Responsibility
Cabinet is the collective decision-making body of the government, typically composed of senior ministers.
It operates on the principle of collective responsibility, meaning:
All ministers publicly support Cabinet decisions, even if they privately disagree.
Cabinet decisions are binding on all ministers.
This principle maintains government unity, discipline, and accountability to Parliament and the public.
Cabinet discussions are confidential to allow frank deliberation.
2. Ministerial Responsibility
Ministerial responsibility comes in two forms:
a) Collective Ministerial Responsibility
Ministers are collectively responsible to Parliament for government policies and actions.
If Cabinet loses confidence, the whole government resigns or calls an election.
b) Individual Ministerial Responsibility
Each minister is personally accountable for the administration of their department, including actions of officials under them.
Ministers must explain and justify departmental actions to Parliament and, if necessary, resign for serious failures.
Importance of Ministerial Responsibility
Ensures ministers maintain high standards and accountability.
Provides Parliament and the public with a clear line of accountability.
Reinforces the constitutional principle of responsible government.
📚 Key Case Law Illustrations on Cabinet and Ministerial Responsibility
1. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273
Issue:
Whether a minister’s promise or policy statement creates legal rights enforceable by courts.
Facts:
Teoh, a non-citizen, relied on Australia’s ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, expecting fair treatment from the immigration minister.
Decision:
The High Court held that ratification of an international treaty created a legitimate expectation that the minister would consider its provisions. The minister's failure breached procedural fairness.
Significance:
Highlights ministerial responsibility to act fairly and in accordance with policy commitments.
Reflects accountability in the exercise of ministerial power.
2. R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia (1956) 94 CLR 254 (Boilermakers’ Case)
Issue:
Whether a tribunal could exercise judicial and non-judicial functions.
Decision:
The High Court ruled that judicial power must be exercised by courts only, emphasizing the separation of powers but also underscoring ministers’ accountability for administrative decisions.
Significance:
While focusing on separation of powers, this case implies ministers cannot delegate judicial functions improperly, tying to ministerial responsibility for lawful administration.
3. First State Superannuation Board v Commissioner for Corporate Affairs (1987) 13 ACLR 601
Issue:
Liability and accountability of ministers for actions of statutory bodies under their portfolio.
Facts:
The question was whether the minister bore responsibility for decisions of a board under their control.
Decision:
The Court held ministers may be held responsible politically but are not personally liable for statutory bodies' actions unless directly involved.
Significance:
Clarifies scope of individual ministerial responsibility — political, not personal liability in all cases.
4. Re McBain; Ex parte Australian Catholic Bishops Conference (2002) 209 CLR 372
Issue:
Ministerial discretion and accountability regarding IVF treatments and anti-discrimination law.
Facts:
Minister McBain issued guidelines affecting IVF treatment; Catholic Bishops challenged on grounds of discrimination.
Decision:
The High Court upheld the minister's powers, emphasizing the minister must exercise discretion according to law but is accountable for decisions.
Significance:
Shows ministerial responsibility in policy-making and discretion; ministers must act within legal limits and answer to Parliament.
5. Williams v Commonwealth (No 1) (2012) 248 CLR 156
Issue:
Limits on ministerial power to spend public money without parliamentary authorization.
Facts:
The Commonwealth funded school chaplaincy programs without explicit parliamentary appropriation.
Decision:
The High Court ruled such expenditure unlawful without Parliament's authorization, reinforcing ministerial accountability to Parliament.
Significance:
Upholds the principle that ministers must act within constitutional and parliamentary controls — a cornerstone of ministerial responsibility.
Summary Table
| Case | Issue/Focus | Key Outcome | Role in Cabinet/Ministerial Responsibility |
|---|---|---|---|
| Teoh (1995) | Legitimate expectation and fairness | Minister must consider treaty rights | Minister’s procedural fairness and policy adherence |
| Boilermakers’ Case (1956) | Separation of powers | Judicial functions must be separate | Minister responsible for lawful administration |
| First State Super Board | Liability for statutory bodies | Political responsibility only | Limits of individual ministerial responsibility |
| Re McBain (2002) | Ministerial discretion in policy | Discretion must be lawful | Accountability for lawful decision-making |
| Williams (2012) | Spending without Parliament’s approval | Expenditure unlawful | Minister accountable to Parliament and constitutional limits |
Conclusion
Cabinet responsibility ensures government unity and collective accountability for policies.
Ministerial responsibility holds ministers personally accountable for their departments and public administration.
These doctrines preserve responsible government by ensuring ministers are answerable to Parliament and the public.
Case law demonstrates how courts enforce ministerial duties regarding fairness, legality, and accountability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments