I’ve got to admit: I was actually sympathetic to Howard regarding the Santo Santoro crisis. What more could he have done? How much could he really be blamed for the deceitful conduct of his ministers? But then Howard said something on last night’s 7.30 Report that caught my attention:
…I don’t know the processes that he went through in his mind on this issue, all I know is that he had an obligation and, after all, the Liberal Party is the party of personal responsibility. We pride ourselves on personal responsibility. He had a personal responsibility as a Senator, quite apart from his obligations as a minister, to make sure that the paperwork was in order.
Did Howard just link Santoro’s case inadvertantly to the Liberal party’s own ideology? And by doing so, revealing it as an example of the failure of this ideology? Personal responsibility has been the guiding principle for the individualism, privitisation and liberal market policies of the Liberals. Yet a lot of the scandals that have rocked the party over the last few weeks – Santoro’s failed disclosures, fraud investigation of Queensland Liberal MPs, Amanda Vanstone’s misuse of $70,000 of public funds to learn Mandarin – have been evidence of the demise of personal responsibility. An indication, not to mention consequence, of the lack of proper oversight and regulation.
Even right wing ideologue Gerard Henderson seems to have noticed the slack in his latest column:
In fact Santoro’s dismissal provides an example of what is wrong with the Liberal Party at the federal, state and territory levels. Despite constant warnings from Howard, there is an evident amount of indiscipline and self-indulgence in federal Coalition ranks.
Coupled with unregistered lobbyist influence on both sides of parliament, we’re looking at that old adage of stricter transparency and accountability mechanisms in government. At present, all we have is the Prime Ministerial Code of Conduct, which, in the hands of the party leader, has often been compromised in the interests of the party. Personal responsibility may be a worthy ideal but, as an assurance of accountability, it’s dubious at best.
