Governing the City State - Chief Minister and Treasury Directorate ...

While accountability systems are an accepted and important part of Australian systems ofgovernment, accountability is not an “unqualified good”:its general rationale is the need to prevent or reduce the abuse of power by those whocannot otherwise be trusted to do what they are obliged to do. But it is not costless,requiring time-consuming reporting and explaining on the part of those accountable,along with expensive and intrusive institutions dedicated to monitoring andinvestigating. Trust and goodwill, where they can be relied on, are more efficientmeans of securing compliance. 282The Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) notes that while essential to thedemocratic system, accountability processes form “only one of a number of qualitiesnecessary to an effective system of government” and are not without their drawbacksincluding: cost and complexity, reduced incentive and scope for independent action orinnovation in response to new challenges, creation of delays to decision making, and the factthat while greater transparency “can help to prevent foreseeable and preventable errors ... itcan also encourage risk avoidance and conservative decision-making”. 283As has been outlined in Chapter 3, the more devolved models of governance evident in apublic value paradigm create challenges not only for officials charged with their operation,but also for accountability frameworks and institutions:it involves longer, and often more diffuse, relationship and responsibility chains.Many policy responses, whatever the implementation approach, require flexibilityand innovation at the point of delivery, implying a degree of open-endedness whichdoes not always sit easily with traditional accountability mechanisms. 284In a public value paradigm, accountability processes are challenged by the fact that it isharder to locate centres of authority in networks, and while they offer “more points of contactand information and may be more open and porous than traditional hierarchies … they alsolend themselves to buck-passing when things go wrong. 285 Furthermore, while:ministers are still held accountable to some extent for the detailed actions of public serviceproviders, partly because of public expectations of politicians but partly also because of thecomparatively low degree of accountability to the general public practised by privateorganisations and their leaders. ... At the same time, some diminution in ministerialaccountability must follow from the diminution of direct control, particularly in the capacity286of ministers to impose remedies in response to public complaints.The challenge for the ACT, then, is to continue to develop and refine a system of holding thegovernment and officials accountable for performance that meets the proper needs and282 Mulgan (2002) p.4.283 Australian Public Service Commission (2009b), pp.8-9.284 Australian Public Service Commission (2009c) Policy Implementation Through Devolved Government CommonwealthGovernment, Canberra, p.23.285 Mulgan (2002) p.11.286 Mulgan (2002) p.11.Strategy, Resource Allocation and the Vacant Middle Ground: 225