A QUESTION OF RESPONSIBILITY: RESPONDING TO ROBODEBT

On the desk of former US President Harry Truman stood a small sign proclaiming that “the buck stops here”. The sign was later borrowed by another President, Jimmy Carter.

Sixty-six years after Truman left office, yet another US President, Donald Trump, was asked where the buck stopped for COVID lockdown decisions. His answer: “the buck stops with everybody”.

The two Presidential statements represent diametrically opposed views on the responsibilities of office. Truman’s expresses a commitment to individual responsibility. Trump’s, by contrast, expresses one to collective responsibility.

Whether Trump truly believes in collective responsibility is debatable. His behaviour in office and subsequently suggests otherwise. A more accurate statement may have been that ‘the buck stops with anyone but me’. But 2023 is a new year, so let’s be kind.

Western philosophy, which underpins the basic working of Australian society, traditionally emphasises individual responsibility. For some, even the very notion of collective responsibility is controversial. Hywel Lewis, for example, considered the idea to be ‘barbarous’ 

Lewis’ views, it must be said, sit at the outer edge of philosophical thought. Recent Western thinking has more actively embraced collective responsibility – although its boundaries remain deeply debated. This shift is, perhaps, an inevitable response to modernity where so much of our wellbeing is determined by collective actions (climate change for instance). But it also reflects evolving notions of justice.

One suspects that Confucius would have found the Western debate a little curious. Confucian thinking sees the group as more important than the individual and strikes a naturally different balance between (and focus for) individual and collective responsibilities. It is a reminder that Western traditions, powerful though they are, are not the only way of thinking.

Of course, philosophers, tucked safely in their towers of ivory, do not have to contend with the practical realities of the world. The rest of us do, and it is here where things get tricky.

Individual and collective responsibilities intertwine throughout Australian society. Our traditions may emphasise individual responsibility, but our society could not operate without a healthy blend and balance of individual and collective responsibilities. The principle of trial by jury, to pick one example, established after a rocky start by the Magna Carta in 1215, places a collective responsibility on jurors to assess whether individuals have met their responsibility to comply with the law. Directors of companies have a similar collective responsibility to act as a board, as well as having distinct individual responsibilities.

Achieving a healthy blend and balance of individual and collective responsibilities is especially important within government. Many recent government failures and controversies – not least the Robodebt saga – have roots in the blend and balance of collective and individual responsibilities inside government failing to serve the interests of the public well.

The recent Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety provides one example of the challenges that can arise. The Commission, which took over two years to complete, produced five volumes of text. The summary volume alone is 326 pages. It is a deep and extensive examination of an undeniably important issue. 

Letters patent for the Commission charged the two commissioners collectively, while appointing one as chair (the original chair died during the inquiry and was replaced). Expectations, and national interest, would have been best served by the commissioners presenting a single collective view. Despite this, the final report articulated two very different visions of the future of aged care.

The Aged Care Commission provides an example of an individual responsibility trumping a collective one. The commissioners clearly sought to act collectively where they could, and many recommendations were agreed. On key issues, however, both felt their individual responsibility to say what they thought right was more important than their collective responsibility to form a single view.

It would be wrong to describe the Aged Care Commission as a failure. Its outcome may not have been ideal, but no real harm was done. The views of both commissioners were formed with diligence and care, and both views have strengths and weaknesses. The bottom line, however, was that the collective responsibility given to the commission went partly unmet.

The Aged Care Commission shows that, even in the best of circumstances, balancing individual and collective responsibilities can be difficult. The charter of the commission was clear. It focussed without distraction on a single (albeit complex) issue. Commissioners had complete authority and independence within the terms of reference. Time (contrasting, perhaps, with the Robodebt Commission) and resourcing were not constrained. Neither commissioner had anything material to lose, save their own reputation.

Executive government, by contrast, operates a long way from the best of circumstances. Ministers and senior public servants face a cacophony of changing and competing priorities. Individual responsibility, even where it is clear (and it often isn’t), is discharged via complicated collective processes involving many players with widely varying levels of underlying authority. Resourcing and time are almost always constrained, often severely. It is a tough environment in which to clearly define collective and individual responsibilities, let alone ensure the blend and balance is healthy.

The challenge government faces is arguably becoming even more difficult. An increasing feature of modern government is the emphasis given to collective processes and hence responsibility. This creates a tension. Our basic legal conception of government presumes individual responsibility, but our practice relies on a collective one.

Even ministers, who are appointed individually by the Governor-General, regularly cede a level of individual authority to the collective (constitutionally unrecognised) decisions of Cabinet. Senior public servants must work within this construct. They also face the additional complexity of ensuring their decisions and actions appropriately balance a responsibility to serve the government of the day with a broader stewardship responsibility to the Australian people. Some manage this better than others.

The bias within government to the collective has strengths and weaknesses. Its strength is in better positioning government to ensure its decisions properly consider and balance the competing claims of, and implications of government action for, a complex and diverse society. Its weakness is that making everyone responsible (to use Trump’s formulation) often means that no-one is in a position to take responsibility.

This weakness creates the opposite problem to that evidenced by the Aged Care Commission. Rather than an individual responsibility trumping a collective one, the tendency (and culture) within government can result in important individual responsibilities being ceded to an uncertain collective. When this happens, good government is undermined.

Time pressures compound the challenge. Collective responsibilities require time and good process to discharge well, and time (at least) is always in short supply within government. When faced with time constraints and competing priorities, assuming ‘someone else will fix it’ becomes an understandable - if not always acceptable - response.

Delegation practice adds further complexity. Generally, the formal responsibilities of departments rest with the secretary as an ex-officio individual. Discharging these responsibilities personally is impossible and, as a consequence, many are delegated. Too often, what starts as a clear individual responsibility ends up a melange of unclear and ineffective individual and collective ones. Organisational culture is critical here and can be the difference between a delegation system that functions well and one that does not. It is an area of public service practice that deserves much more serious attention.

For the most part, these messy issues of executive government have lain in the dark – ignored by public administration practitioners and thinkers alike. No longer. The Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme has turned a bright spotlight onto the inner workings of government. The picture it is revealing is not pretty, and the public has every right to be concerned.

In establishing the Robodebt Commission, our society’s natural focus on individual responsibility has come to the fore. Calls were being made before the Commission was established for individual heads to roll. Letters patent for the Commission direct it to explore the role played by ‘those in a position of seniority’.

The focus on individuals is appropriate, but it is not enough. Behind Robodebt lies a deeper story of how the blend, balance and clarity of individual and collective responsibilities within government failed to serve the people of Australia well. To focus on one, without addressing the other, would be a grievous error.

In responding to the Robodebt Commission, one approach would be for government to quarantine corrective action to the agencies involved. This should be resisted. There are, of course, unique elements to Robodebt. But most of the issues it has revealed (including the cultural ones) are endemic and something that no senior public servant or minister can afford to ignore. As many senior public servants privately admit, there but for the grace of God go I. 

The confused individual and collective responsibilities on show at the Commission stand as a stark lesson for the future. Government needs to embark on a serious reflection on what blend and balance of individual and collective responsibilities best supports the development and delivery of policy, and how to implement these effectively. This reflection should be practically focussed and should recognise that government does not operate in the best of circumstances. But it should also pass a tough ruler over current practice and culture, and how it can be improved.

Identifying and shifting to better practice will likely require changes to some longstanding public service and ministerial behaviours. The stakes are high, and the issues involved complex. In a world addicted to haste, this process should not be unduly rushed.

On this score, at least, early signs from government are positive.