, AUSTRALIA
PRIME MINISTER
FOR PRESS 14. NOVEMBER 1977
GARRAN ORATION
The Garran Oration honours the name of a most distinguished
Australian. As Constitutional Lawyer and civil servant Sir Robert
Garran was pre-eminent. His concern for Australia's law and
Government was manifest throughout his long career. As
Permanent Head of the Attorney General's Department he served
with great distinction under no less than sixteen Governments
between 1901 and 1932, and his personal influence continued
long after that. It continues still, through his scholarly
works. I am honoured to be directly associated with the annual commemoration
of a man who contributed so significantly to the understanding
and practice of government in this country.
It is about a basic principle of our political system that I want
to talk tonight the principle of responsibility in government.
This has been much discussed in recent times, and a great deal of
emphasis has been given to what are regarded as the limits to the
principle of responsibility. It is even suggested on occasion that
it no longer accords with reality.
My theme tonight is to affirm the vital role of the principle of
responsibility in our system, in which the Government derives its
authority from and is the servant of the people. The essence of
the principle is very simple. Those who make Government policy
and control its implementation should be responsible and
accountable for the performance of their trust.
All democracies are based on the fundamental belief that the people
choose the Government and charge it with pursuing the public
interest, and that if they are not satisfied with its performance
they can dismiss it. Among the democratic forms of Government
however, our system is designated " responsible government" because
it has another feature.
The Government and its individual Ministers are responsible not
only to the people at elections, but to the Parliament between
elections. The people not only charge the Government with the
responsibility of managing their public affairs. They also
charge the Parliament with reviewing the Government's action.
Ministers are individually responsible to the Parliament for the
proper administration of their Departments, and the Government is
accountable collectively for its performance. / The legislature' s
-2
The legislature's power to scrutinise constantly the performance
of Ministers and Government supplements and supports the requirement
of regular accountability to the people at elections. if
Parliament ceases to believe-' that the Government is-acting in the
nation's interests, it can withdraw its support from the Government
and the Government will lose office. Though this power is rarely
exercised, recent events in Australia demonstrate that the
Government's accountability is a living part of our constitutional
sys tem.
The principle of responsibility to the electorate and the
Parliament is a vital one which must be maintained and strengthened
because it is the basis of popular control over the direction of
Government and the destiny of the nation. To the extent that it
is eroded, the people themselves are weakened. If the people
cannot call to account the makers of Government policy, they ultimately
have no way of controlling public policy, or the impact of that
policy on their own lives. For the Government to be truly accountable
to the people and Parliament, the electoral and Parliamentary
machinery must of course work effectively and democratically.
But just as fundamental are two further requirements. First, people
and Parliament must have the knowledge required to pass judgement on
the Government. Second, the Ministers and Government must themselves
be in control of public policy~ so that those who the Parliament and
people can call to account are indeed those responsible. To the
extent that responsibility is diffused beyond the elected governmentother
than by legislative intent to that extent is effective,
popular control diminished. These two conditions for effective
responsibility in Government are complementary, but there are also
areas where they compete.
The clearest area of competition is the appropriate extent of
confidentiality in Government. Too much secrecy inhibits people's
capacity to judge the Government's performance. A complete absence
of privacy in our system where advisers must be capable of advising
Governments of different political complexions, inhibits the frank
and open discussion between ministers, and between Ministers and
officials which is critical to effective Government and Ministerial
control. Responsible Government in Australia has over the years provided
Government which, on the whole, has served the peoples wishes. It
is important that we should seek to find and perfect the appropriate
balance between the two principles which are essential to its
operation. My Government has actively sought to reconcile these principles in
the legislation on freedom of information and access to Government
archives which is being developed, and which we propose to proceed
with in the new Parliament, and in the Ombudsman and Administrative
Appeals Tribunal, which are already in operation.
I now turn to consider the various elements in our system of
Government in more detail, in order to consider the implications
of the principle of respd~ nsibility. Since I cannot deal with all
the underlying questions in a limited time, I will concentrate on
the Cabinet, the Minister, and the Public Servant, and on those
matters which pose particular difficulties for the realisation of
responsibility in Government. / Cabinet is
-3
THE CABINET
Cabinet is the focus of executive responsibility in our system of
Government. It is not referred to in the Constitution and, until
recently, was unknown to legislation. The Cabinet system has
evolved over the years and this Government has effected and
developed a number of measures including wide use of the
system of Cabinet Committees, which I believe has enabled the
business of Cabinet to be handled more effectively. Important as
these measures are, however, I do not believe I should subject you
to an extensive account of their intracies, and I have covered these
in an addendum to the printed copy of this oration.
Two of the basic aspects of responsible Government of which I have
spoken are clearly evident in the functions and duties of the
Cabinet.. In order tht the people can sheet home responsibility
for the Government's performance, the Cabinet takes collective
responsibility to people and Parliament for that performance.
Equally, Cabinet responsibility can only work if Cabinet maintains
effective control over Government policy.
COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY
Collective responsibility is the key feature of Cabinet Government.
The classic doctrine is that each Minister must, in casting his
vote in Parliament and in his public actions and statements, abide
by, defend, and take responsibility for decisions of the Government
of which he is a member. This basis of the doctrine is quite
simple and immensely powerful. Unless the members of Cabinet
pull together, once a decision is made, the Government's policies
will lack cohesion and consistency.
Those implementing decisions will receive confused and conflicting
instructions and the public will lack a clear basis on which to
judge a Government's performance. The requirement that a minister's
public stance be supportive of Cabinet's decision does not mean
that a Minister who disagrees with a particular decision ought to
or does abandon his private opinions. What it does mean is that
the Minister must stand by the Cabinet decision in public, and
this applies in particular to the Prime Minister.
Closely allied with the need for Cabinet solidarity is the need
for privacy on the deliberations of Cabinet. This is fundamental
to the operations of any Government, and the courts have long
recognised the justification for Cabinet proceedings to remain
confidential. I should perhaps mention that the need for
confidentiality in advice given by ministers as executive
councillors is specifically covered by the oath taken at the
time of appointment. Without general observance of privacy, the
Cabinet system as we know it could not survive. views would not
be expressed with frankness; colleagues would not be consulted
fully; and good government would suffer.
Much of what I have said about collective responsibility and the
need to have a smoothly operating Cabinet system, depends directly
on the existence of mutual trust, confidence and respect as
between Ministers in the Government. Cabinet is not, and cannot
be, an organisation that relies on hierarchy and sanctions.
Mutual trust, respect and confidence can be the only bases on
which the full co-operation of all members of the Ministry can
be secured. The significance of Cabinet unity, of Cabinet members'
loyalty and support to one another cannot be over-emphasised, and
/ I would
-4
I would like to pay a tribute to the way in which my Ministers
have complemented and supported one another. Co-operation is
the word that comes most readily to mind when I look back over
the past two years on my Cabinet's work. I believe that the
foundations of a sound Cabinet system can only be built if there
is a reasonable degree of stability in the composition of the
Cabinet and Ministry. Membership of the Ministry and Cabinet
must change and vary for many reasons, but too great a rate of
change can be disastrous for responsibility in Government.
The major threats to responsible Government, which I have
seen, have occurred when high rates of change in the composition
of Cabinet or Ministry have inhibited the growth of those
necessary conditions. In the last Government, there were
no fewer than 31 Ministerial changes in three years. In my
view, such a record of shuffling and reshuffling of Ministers
is not conducive to Cabinet confidence or good Government.
The Cabinet system imposes most significant responsibilities
and functions on the Prime Minister, and sometimes it is
suggested that Australia is heading towards " Presidential"
Government. On occasions I see in newspapers and journals
that I have a " Presidential" style of Government. I do not
usually bother to debate it because such an assertion is never
clear as to its precise meaning nor what the evidence for it
might be. If the comparison is with the President of the
United States then on the one hand it overlooks that a
President not in control of Congress has to face limitations
that an Australian Prime Minister leading his Parliamentary
party does not have. On the other hand, it overlooks the
fact that an Australian Prime Minister must retain the support
of his own party, and where applicable, of a coalition.
If the commentators are implying that all power lies in the
hands of the Prime Minister, then I can dismiss such an
assertion simply by referring to the essential features
of my own Cabinet. Strong Ministers taking responsibility
daily inside and outside the Parliament for their individual
actions and decisions within the framework of collective
responsibility and mutual support between Ministers.
The attribution of untrammeled power to a Prime Minister shows
a lack of understanding of how an effective Cabinet system
functions. It falsely assumes that the Prime Minister's
views always prevail, because when Cabinet confidentiality
operates as it should, a Prime Minister is never seen to adopt
views at variance with those of Cabinet.
Some deliberate checks to slow down the number of submissions
and reduce the pressure on Ministers have been reduced. The
Ministry has insisted on wider and more thorough consultation
between Departments before matters come to Cabinet. But we
are dealing with a lot more business, and it still has to be
encompassed in the time available for meetings mostly in
Canberra and on the days when Parliament is sitting.
In this Government the consequence of the greater pressure
that the Ministry has to cope with is not the emergence of
one man rule but rather the opposite. A greater emphasis on
consultation and a greater use of the mechanism of Cabinet
than ever before. / What the
What the public does not see is the vast co-operative effort
of Ministers and Departments to see that a proposal is fleshed
out, examined, options considered and decisions taken.
In the Cabinet Room proposals are explained, are freely discussed,
privacy is respected and agreement is reached on a proper course
of action. The collectivity of Cabinet is not just an academic
phrase; it is a real, and necessary, and enduring part of our
system. THE MINISTERS
I turn now to the specific question of Ministerial responsibility.
The role of the Minister in our system of Government is fundamental.
It is through Ministers that the ends of Government are formulated
and pursued in dynamic and creative ways. It is the Minister who
as a Member of Parliament owes his position to popular election.
It is the Minister who, between elections, is the person clearly
identifiable as responsible for the initiation, the definition,
and the administration of public programmes. Performance of the
Minister is a vital factor judged when the Government faces the
electorate. The Westminster system can only work if it is clear to the people
that exercises of authority are controlled by those who have been
elected. Writers on Ministerial responsibility are now recognising
that the idea isnot an easy one to achieve in practice if it
ever was. It has always been difficult for a Minister to be
aware of let alone directly involved in every exercise of
the powers conferred upon him. I do not know why this Ministerial
inability to be Superman should surprise anyone. It is, after
all, the very reason for the existence of a public service,
organised into Departments, to act as the Minister's agents.
Too often, commentators tend to overlook the Minister's role in
controlling, guiding and continuously supervising the bureaucracy,
and the mechanisms and structures necessary to secure effective
Ministerial control. Occasionally this can lead to the notion
that the Minister is there just to carry the can in Parliament and
in public when something goes wrong in the public service.
The Minister can even be seen as the Department's representative
in the Cabinet and the Parliament, carrying the Department's
position, bargaining for it and securing its victory.
This picture is inaccurate but nonetheless when notions of this
kind are present in our thinking and discussion they can condition
proposals for change.
For example, some contemporary discussion of the accountability of
our executive Government is in terms of the accountability of the
public service, and aims at developing checks and balances in the
public service itself ( which basically bypass the Minister).
The primary role and responsibility of the Minister, as the
representative of the electorate, is to be responsible to it,
through the Parliament, for the formulation of policies and their
implementation. That is the positive aspect of the doctrine of
Ministerial responsibility. Any suggestion or proposal whose
effect is to restrict or confine this responsibility must be
rejected. / I should
-6
I should also make mention here of the valuable role being
played by Ministerial staff in strengthening Ministerial
control. The Ministerial staff provide an important support
to the Minister in his carrying out of those functions which
cannot be delegated to Departments without handing over
responsibilities which must be his alone. The Ministerial
staff have become an important increment to the resources
available to the elected Government in carrying out the
tasks for which it was elected.
The experience of the present Government shows that it is
possible for the Ministerial staff and Departments to work
harmoniously together in carrying out their respective functions.
Provided it is recognised that the functions of these two groups
of staff are distinct, it is possible to avoid the damaging
competition which arose in the past. I have no doubt that
the system can continue to develop in a way which strengthens
the principle of Ministerial responsibility in our system of
Government. It is also appropriate to mention here that all
Ministers in my Government and each member of their staff have
provided me with a statement of their personal pecuniary
interests, and have kept it up to date. Detailed rules have
also been developed under. the present Government concerning
the acceptance of gifts by Ministers.
THE PUBLIC SERVANT
The role of the public servant is to act as the agent of the
elected Government. That is an extraordinarily important role
and the responsibility of the public servant is a high and
onerous one. By any standards, the Australian public service
is highly sophisticated, knowledgeable, and professional.
It has considerable security of tenure and constitutes a
career system within which individual public servants can
pursue their career ambitions.
This range of benefits and reward opportunities is available
almost exclusively to public servants in contemporary societies.
In return, Australians have been well served by the Australian
public service. It has performed its role with dedication and
often under considerable pressures. In recent years, as part
of the expansion of public expenditure promoted by our
predecessors, the public service network underwent a very
rapid growth which had a significant impact on the Budget
deficit. This Government has pursued a policy of streamlining the
service with the objective of making it a more efficient
instrument of Government policy. In the period from
November 1975 to 30 June 1977, the real reduction in total
Commonwealth full time civilian staff under ceilings control
was about 11,500.
If, instead of this policy, Commonwealth staff had continued
to grow at the average rate of 4.83 per cent experienced over
the three years up to June 1975 about $ 770 million would have
been added to the Commonwealth salaries bill over the past two
years. When superannuation, office accommodation, and other
overheads are included, the total cost of this would of course
have been very much higher. / This initial
-7
This initial process of streamlining has now been substantially
completed. There will be pockets of expansion and contraction,
but in general there will be stability in the service. There
will of course continue to be change and progress to meet the
changing needs of modern Government. It is important, however,
that changes to the existing framework should only be brought
about for good reason.
I do not believe in changing the machinery of Government for
the sake of trying to give an impression of new and grand
initiatives. Constant reorganisation is disruptive to the
Departments and often costly. The public service can only
give of its best when it is not faced with continuing upheaval
in its organisation.
My Government looks to it, and its senior members in particular,
for strong and competent support in the formulation of policies,
and in taking a major part in administering those policies when
they are determined.
The responsibilities of the public service in part are onerous
because the public servant must work in a political environment.
The basic philosophy of our public service is that it is nonpolitical.
This does not mean that a senior administrator
should not have a sense of the political. Indeed, he must
recognise the political context of his actions and their
political components. This is applicable in all policy fields
for even the most abstract science and neutral technology can
have a profound political impact when translated into practice.
The public service, however, must be able to serve the needs
of the Government of the day, regardless of that Government's
political complexion. Senior officers must canvass a range of
policy options with Ministers, but once a decision is made,
they must use all of their skills to ensure effective
implementation. This may require a public servant to pursue
policies and programmes with which he disagrees.
There will be less strain on the official in doing this and on
his capacity to behave similarly with a different Government,
if he is politically detached and non-partisan. Unless this
is the case with the career official, the stability and the
professionalism of the public service will also be subject to
severe strain.
The present Government has recognised that there may be
occasions upon which Governments will wish to appoint
politically committed persons to the highest public service
positions. When such politically committed persons are
appointed, there should be no continuing commitment to them
on the part of succeeding Governments. To argue that there
should be is to misunderstand the nature of the Australian
public service. / The appointment
-8
This appointment of a politically committed individual as head
of a department, might serve the interests of the Government
making the appointment verywell. But new governments might
conclude that it is impossible for a person so identified
with their politicalopponents to serve them impartially.
The senior administrator frequently finds himself in situations
which require the highest degree of confidentiality.
He is present at discussions with and between Ministers and
Departments. On all such occasions, the public servant is
occupying a position of trust. Where discussions between Ministers
are concerned, the public servant is only present on the basis
of trust. The result of the implantation of political partisans
within a career public service would be the destruction of
this trust, and ultimately the total destruction of the public
service as we know it.
We have responded to this problem with the Public Service
Amendment ( First Division Officers) Act passed earlier this year.
It establishes new statutory procedures for the appointment of
permanent heads of departments. Primary responsibility is now
placed in the hands of a committee headed by the Chairman of
the Public Service Board. This Committee prepares for Cabinet
a short list of suitable candidates. only a person appointed
from this list or from any revised list prepared by the Committeeretains
security of tenure. If the Government of the day chooses
to appoint a person not on the short list, he or she can only
be appointed initially for a fixed term of not more than five years,
and on a change of government, the appointment can be immediately
terminated. It is felt that these new procedures enable a government to make
appointments from outside the normal public service career
structure, but prevent any lasting breach of the principle of an
apolitical public service.
Non-partisanship and the observance of confidentiality are not
simply the requirements of advisors and senior management.
Citizens at all points of contact with public departments and
agencies are entitled to expect, and receive, non-partisan
treatment and to have their affairs treated respectfully and
confidentially. Moreover, we expect officials to observe the
highest possible standards of technical performance.
On both counts in maintaining ethical and technical standardsthe
government is able to rely to a considerable extent on the
powerful ethos of the Public Service itself. The Government
and the Parliament also rely on central coordinating agencies
for advice and administrative assistance in maintaining many of
these standards. More recently, innovations have been made to
provide Parliament and people with additional information, and
to provide aggrieved citizens redress for their complaints.
9-
These include the House of Representatives Committee on
Expenditure; efficiency audits by the Auditor-General;
the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; the Commonwealth Ombudsman;
the Administrative Decisions ( judicial Review) Act.
other suggestions have been made to enhance the standards of
performance and accountability for those administrative actions
for which the Government is responsible. Many have come from
the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration
and are being considered by the Government.
The Government will continue to work on the implementation of
various aspects of the Coombs Report, which contains many worthwhile
recommendation. We will help public servants with further
training and education; we want to make the Public Service
more mobile within and between departments; and we have
approved schemes for executive training and exchanges between the
Public Service and private industry. Such schemes will be
mutually productive private industry and the Public Service
will each understand the other better.
I stress once again, however, thatthe first premise in our
consideration of suggestions for change in the Public Service
should always be that methods of accountability must enhance
not diminish the positive roles embedded in the doctrines
of Ministerial, Cabinet and Parliamentary responsibility.
EXECUTIVE AND POLICY RESPONSIBILITY
It now remains to speak briefly on how the three arms of
executive government of which I have spoken Cabinet, the
Minister and the Public Servant combine in the formulation of
new policy.
While the administration of the executive powers of government has
a great impact on many business and private decisions, the
formulation of policy reaching out to the future is clearly
of equal importance. This is especially true in a world where
circumstances, attitudes and behaviour patterns are changing
rapdily as appears to have been the case in recent times.
How is policy formulated? To what extent is it under the control of
Ministers or bureaucracies? What power do those outside Government
and bureaucracies have in influencing policy?
Any competent administration will start from the point that no one
person or group has a monopoly of good ideas good ideas are
scarce. Hence a government must have the capacity to find these
ideas, wherever theymay be and more importantly have the capacity
to recognise and to act on them. A competent administrator does
not necessarily have to be a person capable of generating novel
or new ideas of his own. He will often be busy with the tasks
of administration.
10
But he does need to know how to find the ideas from which
new policies can develop. My Government has sought to develop
new ideas in several ways. Ideas, constantly flow out of
Cabinet meetings, and on a number of occasions full Ministerial
meetings have been held to discuss forward policy issues.
Quite deliberately at these meetings, there has been no formal
agenda in front of Ministers, nor are Ministers limited to
putting forward ideas that cover only their own departments.
They have been positively encouraged to put forward ideas across
the whole realm of government.
A Minister has a responsibility to see that his department is
so organised that it does think positively about the future.
The department that merely reacts to circumstances and cannot
think of the future, that cannot propose ideas, is self-evidently
bady organised. In addition, my Government consciously endeavours
to reach out into the wider public for the development and
formulation of ideas.
We have done this both formally and informally. We have,
for example, established a government economic panel and an
economic consultative group for the formal communication of broad
economic ideas. Ministers, also have frequent contact in the
Cabinet room with the executives of various organisations.
At these meetings, the conversation and exchange of ideas is
quite informal. We also endeavour at these meetings to increase
our understanding of how the general public will react to new
proposals and programmes. This is not just a question of
political advancement, which I suppose has to be part of the
concern of all governments.
It is also a question of being able to judge whether there
is an aspect to a potentially new policy to which the public could
be particularly sensitive, and which could cause the failure of
the policy as a whole. This is not always an easy judgement to
make, for people do react in unexpected ways.
I can illustrate this point by taking an example from the
economic area. Many people still look for public reactions to
economic policies as though conditions have not changed from
the time when the policies of Keynes were appropriate.
Keynes developed the thesis that at a time of unemployment,
increased government spending would create more jobs.
Those who still propound that view today fail to understand that
the pre-conditions for the successful applications of Keynes no
longer exist.
The public simply does not react in the classic manner Keynes
described. Increased government spending leads people to
increase their inflationary expecations. Businessmen start
predicting higher costs and wages, and raise their own prices
in anticipation. Wage and salary earners expecting a more
difficult economic outlook, curtail their spending. The result
is higher unEnployment in the private sector, offsetting any short
lived stimulus arising from the intial government spending. / il
11
CONCLUSIONS May I conclude by commenting briefly on the need for responsibility
in government in its widest sense. If public confidence in our
Parliamenttary institutions is to be maintained, it is vital
that Ministers and those who aspire to Ministerial rank
remain responsible in what they promise to achieve in office.
Promises which are quite unrealistic and cannot be performed
damage not just the politican who makes them, but our entire
system of government.
The Australian electorate is profoundly suspicious of any
political leader who promises the world, particularly if he
implies that his promises can be achieved at no cost.
The electorate in fact pays a heavy cost for glossy new
programmes with a big price tag either through higher taxes
or through increased inflation. This is a lesson we have all
learnt in the recent past.
Our responsibility as political leaders is to contain the
public's expectations of the government's performance within
the bounds of what is in fact achievable. People must be able to
see government effectively implementing the policies on which
it was elected. A constant procession of promises followed by
disappointment can onlylead to widespread public cynicism
and disenchantment.
The pressures placed on a Minister of meeting the expectations
of the electorate and of satisfying the constant scrutiny
of Parliament and of keeping firm control over this portfolio
are very great, but it is vital that they be met.
For the continuing health and vitality of our political system
closely depends on the extent to which the duties of
Ministerial responsibility in all its facets are fully
performed. / Addendum
ADDENDUM
ORGANISING THE CABINET
To the extent that responsible government depends on the
effectiveness of Cabinet, the efficient organisation of Cabinet
becomes of paramount importance. Since 1956, Federal Liberal
Governments have distinguished between " Cabinee' and " Ministry".
Just as the British have found, it has been our experience
that this division has greatly improved the overall decision
making process.
There are periodically meetings of the full Ministry, and
Ministers not in the Cabinet are coopted to be present at
Cabinet or a Committee when particular matters of interest
to them are under discussion, or may attend with the
Prime Minister's agreement.
Under my government there are strict rules about what matters must
be decided in Cabinet and on the procedures to be followed
in the actual submission of items. Items considered by
Cabinet include, major or significant issues ( including both
the implementation of new policies and programmes and the
revision of existing ones); proposals involving large expenditure
or employment questions; proposals having a considerable impact
upon relations with other governments; proposals requiring
legislation; and senior government appointments.
The present government has adopted a structure of Standing
Cabinet Committees which range over the various areas of government
activity. The General Administrative Committee, the Legislation
Committee, the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee,
the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Machinery of
Government Committee, and the Planning and Coordination Committee
meet frequently and have proved to be very useful.
We originally established an Economic Committee but it touched
on so many portfolios that it became akin to Cabinet itself.
For that reason, Cabinet as a whole now normally deals with
economic issues.
How to resolve issues involving two Ministers or more,
but not listed for Cabinet, is a matter for the judgement of the
Ministers concerned, or ultimately for the Prime Minister.
Committees are chaired by the Prime Minister or a Minister appointed
by him, and make decisions or refer their conclusions to Cabinet as
appropriate. Some Standing Cabinet Committees are supported
by Committees of relevant permanent heads. They may coopt other
permanent heads and they may work through sub-committees and
task groups.
In addition to the Standing Committees, frequent use is made of
specialist committees embracing Cabinet members or other
Ministers and these are disbanded on reaching a conclusion.
They are often supported by officials drawn from relevant specialist
areas and transact business which would otherwise absorb a
great deal of Cabinet's time.
4 2.
The increasing load of government business has required us to
make every effort to streamline the decision making processes
of Cabinet, and I believe the comprehensive system of committees
now in operation contributes significantly to our desire
for more efficient government.
THE CABINET AND OFFICIALS
Cabinet does a large part of its business considering formal
written submissions andits decisions are also formalised.
Inevitably an effective Cabinet Secretariat is required.
The system has come a long way since the 1940' s. Before that,
department officials were not used to record the deliberations
of Cainbet. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
has come to play an important role in advising the
Prime Minister on the programming of the substantial volume
of Cabinet business and on the completeness of subsmissions;
in advising relevant Ministers of those decisions which are
the basis for action; and in following up Cabinet decisions.
Officials from Departments may be invited to attend during
Cabinet or Cabinet Committee meetings to provide on the spot
advice on specific issues, though such attendance is more likely
at meetings of short term committees set up to examine
particular matters.
Officers of Departments also have important functions in the
complex processes of consultation and coordination involved.
In the overall programming of Cabinet business; in the production
of coherent Cabinet papers; and in their subsequent implementation.
I should say that while officials may attend Cabinet to
provide advice covering technical areas or to supply the
Cabinet with factual information, the Cabinet very strictly
conforms to the practice that officials should only be in the
Cabinet room to provide necessary information. Officials
should neither become, not should they be seen to become,
part of the process of debate which is involved in Cabinet
reaching its decisions. In Cabinet the official's role is
to inform, not to debate.
Once the public servants have given the required information, the
normal practice is for them to withdraw from the Cabinet
decision-making process. This is necessary to make quite sure
that they retain their impartiality.