Ministerial Staff Under the Howard Government: Problem, Solution or Black Hole?

Abstract

This thesis traces the development of the ministerial staffing system in Australian Commonwealth government from 1972 to the present. It explores four aspects of its contemporary operations that are potentially problematic. These are: the accountability of ministerial staff, their conduct and behaviour, the adequacy of current arrangements for managing and controlling the staff, and their fit within a Westminster-style political system. In the thirty years since its formal introduction by the Whitlam government, the ministerial staffing system has evolved to become a powerful new political institution within the Australian core executive. Its growing importance is reflected in the significant growth in ministerial staff numbers, in their increasing seniority and status, and in the progressive expansion of their role and influence. There is now broad acceptance that ministerial staff play necessary and legitimate roles, assisting overloaded ministers to cope with the unrelenting demands of their jobs. However, recent controversies involving ministerial staff indicate that concerns persist about their accountability, about their role and conduct, and about their impact on the system of advice and support to ministers and prime ministers. The contemporary ministerial staffing system is an organisation of considerable complexity and diversity. This study profiles its key features and elements, with a focus on the governance framework within which ministerial staff work. Analysis of staffing arrangements under the Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke and Keating governments shows that all governments have built on the innovations of their predecessors, developing arrangements that reflect their own needs and preferences. But, as this thesis demonstrates, governance arrangements to regulate and control ministerial staff have not evolved as quickly as structures to help and support ministers. Two case studies from the later years of the Keating government demonstrate that problems always inherent to the ministerial staffing system became increasingly evident as public sector reforms challenged the role of the public service, and boundaries between the respective roles and responsibilities of ministerial staff and public servants became blurred. As ministerial offices became larger and there were greater demands on ministers, questions arose about their capacity to manage and supervise their ministerial staff. There has been no scholarly analysis of ministerial staffing arrangements under the Howard government. This thesis contributes original data and analysis documenting the further evolution of the ministerial staffing system during the period 1996 to 2004. This shows the trend towards large, active and interventionist ministerial staffing arrangements has continued under the Howard government. The ministerial staffing system has evolved in ways that reinforce the power of the Prime Minister. Ministerial staff are a key means by which public service responsiveness is achieved. They reach deep into the operations of the bureaucracy in their quest for information and advice. Although it has enhanced employment arrangements for ministerial staff, the Howard government has done little to strengthen the governance framework within which they operate. In the absence of a clear framework, confusion has arisen about the demarcation of roles between ministerial staff and public servants. Two cases, the 1997 Travel Rorts affair and the 2001 Children Overboard controversy, provide a dynamic account of the contemporary ministerial staffing system in operation. They also provide an empirical basis for assessing the adequacy of the current governance framework for ministerial staff. This thesis concludes that the actions of the Howard government in handling controversies involving ministerial staff have undermined the already weak governance framework regulating and controlling them. Over time, and especially in the past decade, the ministerial staffing system has broken out of the framework on which its development was premised. In a constitutional and managerial sense, the contemporary staffing system is ‘out of control’. This thesis identifies important parallels between the problems with ministerial staff that are being experienced in Australian and other Westminster systems, and those that have characterised the White House staff. The US experience offers a useful way of understanding the endemic problems of political staffing, and highlights potential trajectories along which the Australian system might develop if left unchecked. Finally, the thesis considers proposals for reforming the ministerial staffing system, and assesses the prospects of such proposals being adopted by current and future Australian governments.