Dean Jaensch: Political price of Oakden up to the voter

THE report by the Chief Psychiatrist on the horrors of Oakden was scathing about the very poor quality of care offered by the management and the medical/nursing staff.

THE report by the Chief Psychiatrist on the horrors of Oakden was scathing about the very poor quality of care offered by the management and the medical/nursing staff.

There is also an important question about the quality of the inspections into the facility over time.

What is needed now is a rigorous and detailed examination of what happened, and a new set of rules and regulations.

But there is an equally important issue concerning who should bear responsibility for what happened.

Mr Weatherill made it clear in his belated statement that the government and the relevant ministers carry no responsibility, and that the whole matter was a departmental failure.

In fact, Minister Vlahos merited his praise.

But what about the parliamentary convention of individual ministerial responsibility?

This was developed in the United Kingdom over centuries as a key component of the Westminster system of government. It applied in Australian parliaments from their formation.

In essence, the convention is simple and straightforward.

Ministers are answerable to the Parliament for the handling of their portfolios, and for the actions of the public service under their control.

If serious faults are found in either area, then the convention is that the minister who has the responsibility should resign.

The UK Parliament still takes ministerial responsibility seriously.

In one recent case, a minister read a statement to the House of Commons prepared by his department.

On the following day, he read an amended statement, correcting the first, and resigned as a minister, because the error, in his department, was his responsibility.

It is a long time since Australian parliaments have shown such a level of commitment to a principle.

One problem is that a parliamentary convention cannot be enforced by the parliament.

Even if a house of parliament carries a vote of no-confidence to attempt to enforce the convention, it has no effect.

A convention can best be described under what used to be called a “gentlemen’s agreement”. It has long been expected that all ministers would obey the convention, as it was the right thing to do.

Second, the in-principle commitment to conventions has changed significantly over time, especially after the development of disciplined political parties.

“The gentlemen’s agreements” have been replaced by confrontation and “win at all costs”. Today, ministers are responsible to their parties, not the parliament.

Hence any action by a minister which, in the past, would breach the convention, is now judged on its impact on the party in government. If the government decides that any negative electoral impact is not serious, he or she will stay in the cabinet.

But if there is evidence of a serious electoral backlash if the minister retains his or her position, then the minister will be moved to the backbench.

Which option will apply to the Oakden affair is still to be clarified.