PRIME MINISTERIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

I do not know whether John Howard has lied more than other prime ministers. The point is that it is now misleading the public has become apparently demonstrable that he and future holders of that public office can get away with it if they are of a mind to. Perhaps we might expect more accountability, even responsibility, from our political leaders.

The number of times John Howard has misled the public is overwhelming, if the ALP is to be believed. However, I think this is the wrong approach. It is better to concentrate on fewer cases, in which the evidence is clear, and the decision is important. Similarly, I think it is a wrong approach to become a Howard-hater as Miranda Devine suggests in her somewhat tendentious observations. A Prime Minister should have a sense of personality responsibility, especially one who makes such a principle so compelling for those who are unemployed.

And yet the question is why do not we apparently have effective institutional mechanisms. One reason is the party control of the House of Representatives, and the interest of the Opposition, as the alternative government, in the status quo. Henry Evans, Clerk of the Senate, sees the solution in the non-governmental party dominated Senate. However, the Senate enquiries into the Children Overboard Affair was limited by the Governments action to exclude ministerial advisers, and the refusal of the Opposition to invoke subpoenas. Henry Evans seems to be agreeing with me, that we should consider, a change to the electoral system for the House of Representatives.

We should keep in mind that even improvements are not perfect. Our reform needs to go deeper. But it is hard to see how the electorate, through referendum or election, will act to remedy this situation. It always comes down to individuals.Robert Mann considers:

“On the balance of probabilities it is likely that the Prime Minister deliberately misled the people on November 8, 2001. Even more importantly, from the constitutional point of view, it is likely that he deliberately misled the Parliament on a dozen occasions in February 2002. There is almost no Australian constitutional convention which goes deeper than the one which says that when a minister deliberately misleads the parliament he or she should resign. Indeed it is genuinely difficult to see how the Westminster system of responsible government could survive in the absence of a convention of such a kind.”



We cannot blame John Howard for everything, and in this case he should not let what is happening to Hicks and his family occur. We should have a constitutional charter of social, political and legal rights. But on reflection, I cannot agree with David Hicks lawyer, as least to the extent that he seems to blame Howard entirely:

“I can’t believe that I’m taking an Australian family over to the trial of their son in an American court to a standard of justice that is not acceptable to an American citizen, is not acceptable for a British citizen, but our Prime Minister believes it is acceptable for an Australian citizen.”



Obviously, the prime minister, whoever that may be, will always have more direct responsibility for truth in government, and for that matter protecting the rights of individual Australians than I do as an individual citizen. It remains to be seen how this issue plays out in voting, but I think that will be difficult to determine. So while I conclude it damages Howard, in a way I cannot remember ever before, it does not throw him out of the contest, although perhaps it should.

Post Script: I had an attack of conscience and junked my previous post. So it joins Aaronson’s and Rutherford’s photo in the memory hole – I hope.

Post Script # 2: I am going to have to do better with my original editing.