Kerry O'Brien and Amanda Vanstone squared off tonight on the 7.30 report. The interview didn't even start on a civil note when Kerry led into the interview with a very damning spin on reports released by the Commonwealth Ombudsman today.
Vanstone started by posing an alternative lead in - to which Kerry snappily replied that she should answer the question because they didn't have much time. I haven't seen Vanstone on the 7.30 report before, but there has to be a history of fiery encounters for Kerry to respond so angrily - he was like an attack dog that wouldn't let go. Essentialy Kerry wanted an admission from Vanstone that she or Phillip Ruddock was responsible for the frequent mistakes that have plagued the department over recent times. Vanstone was particularly poor in her rebuttal to Kerry's ongoing demands that she state her responsibility for the errors. Probably a reason why so many are calling for her head in the name of fresh talent moving to the frontbench.
It made me stop and think - where do we draw the line of demanding 'responsibility' from our Ministers for errors / mistakes within their department? How on earth is Vanstone actually responsible for each of these mishandlings and mistakes in her department which occured at the coal face of the department, often in distant geographical locations to Canberra or her electorate.
How is Brendon Nelson actually 'responsible' for the many stuff ups in the handling of the Kovko saga? Too often in recent times have the media scrum bayed for blood of a minister when mistakes are made from a very junior level within their departments. I see the responsibility of a Minister once a mistake or error has been brought to their attention is to investigate, take advice and then act to ensure the problem is fixed. I do not see it as their responsibility to put their head on the chopping block when a platoon seargent fails to see the body of his soldier home, or when military police badly handle an investigation.
We want our leaders to be responsible, but that doesn't mean being the target for all criticism and abuse. Micromanagement is not something that encourages efficiency and good results within a Government department. A minister cannot be everywhere at once, and so the media has no right to expect them to be omnipresent, all knowing, responsible for every action or inaction of their department. Maybe we need to re-draft the expectations of our Ministers and the way they run their departments to accurately reflect realistic expectations....
3 comments:
Ben really as a member of the defence forces you should be well aware of the Westminster System of Parliament.
The buck stops with the Minister.
Vanstone should go because Australian Citizens were deported from this country by her department. Not a minor indiscretion I think you would agree.
Vanstone commissioned a review of her department, and then referred all cases to the Commonwealth Ombudsman. She has obviously sought to find out all the details, and review her department for problems. She should resign if she fails now to reform and repair the department she is responsible for.
By implying that the buck stops with the minister, you also advocate passing the buck through many levels of the department. Why doesn't the buck stop with either the person who is responsible for the error (whose action/inaction caused it) or their immeadiate manager. The buck stops a lot further down than the minister of a geographically diverse department that employs hundreds, if not thousands.
While I agreew ith you about Nelson and the Kovco business, the flaw in your thesis is that Howard and Downer are the most well known micro-managers in political history. This is why both should be held to account for AWB.
Post a Comment