Bruce Hawker’s ruminations about bringing in Ministers from outside Parliament reminded me of a couple of things - how forgettable the 2020 Summit proved to be (and not because of the goodwill and expertise a lot of participants brought to it - but because the manipulation of its discussions demonstrated it was basically a stunt) and the fact that Bob Hawke - another summit fan - also called for non-MPs to be appointed to Cabinet in his 1979 Boyer Lectures. [Hawkey, of course, wasn’t at that stage a parliamentarian himself.]
On a practical level, it rarely works well. Hawker has the good sense not to refer to the fact that Cabinet Secretaries in the US can come from anywhere - subject to Senate confirmation which is usually pro-forma - given the partisanship and complete incompetence that has characterised the Bush administration. But the two examples he cites aren’t exactly promising.
Gordon Rudd’s “ministry of all the talents” proved to be a bit of a damp squib, and other Ministers appointed by Blair - and Brown - were often staffers or cronies elevated to the Lords - many of whom were the most active in the Brown/Blair wars rather than in any constructive policy sense - while some were big party donors and yet others who’d made a big rep in the business world proved to be complete flops as politicians.
But at least they were parliamentarians (not that an appointive House is a good thing) unlike the unelected pseudo-Cabinet members in the bizarre Rann Ministry in South Australia (which also includes a Nationals MP and an independent). It’s not just the conflicts of interest which have been raised with regard to the role of Monsignor David Cappo, but also the managerialist and anti-political nature of what is actually quite a conservative administration, or so my Adelaidean friends tell me.
But more broadly, an argument that the party system is broken is no good basis on which to weaken democracy. It should, rather, make us think about how we can democratise and revitalise parties and Parliament.
Yes, one problem is Robert De Crespigny, former tycoon in charge of Normandy gold. Little wonder he had no problems with a major ecological alteration ( a big diversionary dam of some sort?) involving his big property south of Adelaide located on the glorious Fleurieu Peninsular, a while back. Very Bjelke-Petersen-ish.
Also a little disquiet concerning the sale and (nature of) the redevelopment of the massive Clipsal inner suburban site, till recently the property of the Gerrard.
Bowden identity, the local hotelier Richard Tonkin ( the Guv Hindmarsh, a local “Basement” style entertainment outlet), felt in a thread at the Web Diary blog site a while back, that international influences, including some involved in the state’s burgeoning defence and ordnance industry, have been incidentally involved behind the scenes and certainly new laws prevent locals from any inputs.
The “managerialist and anti-political” (you say that like it’s a bad thing) Rann Government does have some significant runs on the board, though.
Take, for example, “Common Ground”, an innovative approach to solving chronic homelessness.
http://www.commongroundadelaide.org.au/
Monsignor Cappo had a role in this, I presume, since he’s the one who fronts the media whenever they need a spokesperson on homelessness.
And although Common Ground has only recently got up and running, other policies have led to SA being the only state that has actually seen homelessness decline over the past 5 years.
I’ll take the Rann administration over NSW Labor any day.
P.S. if there’s any easy way — or indeed any way at all in the current environment — to “democratise and revitalise parties and Parliament”, do let the Labor and Liberal HQs know about it ASAP!
That’s making the rather optimistic assumption that the Labor and Liberal parties are interested in revitalising and democratising themselves!
Are you a local, Paulus?
Yes, Monsignor Cappo is a good man and his inclusion early in the Rann government’s life, as with De Crespigny, was an act of political genius. And the Rann Government does have runs on the board.
But this does not disprove the notion that it has become increasingly corporatist, exclusionist of its own community, or that there may have been a price to pay for Decrepit-signy, a flinty neolib soul with Establishment and think tank connections, as to its own ultimate autonomy.
Pretty much a local, PW. Born in Sydney, but spent most of my life in Adders. Currently residing in Payneham.
Kim, there are powerful incentives for them to do so: a) the $ from membership fees, b) the legion of volunteers required at elections, and c) having the best possible array of candidates.
Surely there would be every reason for Labor to return to the 6-figure membership level that Hawker states it had 70 years ago — if there were some way to do this.
Mark, the problem with requiring parliamentarians to be ministers is that you then are restricted to people willing to play the political game, rather than people with genuine talent or experience in a particular field. The same argument was made about appointed presidents versus direct election.
The democratic effect is pretty much the same. People vote for the party / leader that they want in, and know that ministerial appointments can change at the whim of the leader anyway. When was the last time a minister lost their seat at a general election as a result of a personal vote on their ministerial performance rather than a vote against the government generally?
While you can look at the Bush administration as an example of what can go wrong, it isn’t remotely clear that their policy would have been any better had congressional Republicans been in those roles.
Another complication is that ministers in marginal seats have to spend a fair bit of time campaigning on top of their ministerial duties. That can’t be a good conflict to have.
I’d rather have our parliamentarians (as our representatives) spend time setting policy and have them pick the right person to implement it. That person may or may not be from parliament.
If you’re concerned by the lack of democracy, you’d have to argue for going the other way and have individual positions open to direct election. That might at least prompt parties to put up qualified candidates. It isn’t clear that that has produced better Attorneys General in the US, though. It’s just lead to politicized prosecutions by AGs trying to look tough.
Kim: well, the current leaders of those parties have nothing to gain and everything to lose from increased participation. The only time a drive for change is powerful enough in a political party is when they’re in opposition, and will be for some time unless something changes. See the conservatives in Queensland. The ALP, being in Government everywhere, has no incentive to change at all. Maybe in NSW if they lost the next election, but that wont be for a while yet.
On the revitalization front, though, I’ve been quite interested watching the primaries in the US. They seem get a level of participation in the campaigning that is huge compared to Australia, and people feel like they own the candidates somewhat, having participated in their selection. The political parties here would never allow it (why give up power if you don’t have to?) but even without open primaries, it would be interesting to see if political party membership increased if members got a direct vote for the leader a la the Democrats.
tomd, the issue of Ministerial responsibility can be solved at the same time as re-energising the party system and introducing diversity into the Cabinet.
Mixed Member Proportional voting system.
Voters cast their vote for their local MP and cast a second vote for a party. The party vote governs how many seats get allocated to each party and the electorate vote determines who represents each electorate. It is entirely possible, then, for voters to boot out a Labor Minister in their own seat while casting their party votes for Labor because they prefer the Labor platform.
MMP basically has a bunch of electorates with single members elected as per normal and then extra seats allocated via party lists to restore proportionality to the share of seats. In NZ and Germany this leads to minority and coalition governments, something we’re used to in Australia (at least in Queensland). It gives each party a share of the seats that it’s entitled to according to the party vote, while ensuring that each electorate gets to choose its local MP without worrying about which party they belong to.
A proportional representation system would see a more diverse range of views on the floor of parliament as minor parties gain the representation they’re entitled to. I believe this would encourage more people to participate in the electoral system because there’s a better chance that their minority voice will be heard than under the current system.
The place for people with talent and genuine interest in a field, is either running for election, or spending their time in the bureacracy/academia/business, learning how to do something very well, and then working for a time, under the direction of said elected Minister. This mania for ‘appointing’ people to positions which wield executive power is simply, anti-democratic. The idea that you can’t contribute good ideas if you are not a member of Parliament or a Minister, is crap. What you don’t get to do if you are not elected, is wield executive power, or vote to support executive action on the floor of Parliament if you are not a Minister. It is quite simple really, and it is a sign of the decrepit nature of contemporary liberalism that there is anyone who can’t see the problem.
I am surprised that anyone with even the vaguest of left liberal pretensions, can’t immediately see the grave problem this kind of chicanery represents.
‘Gordon Rudd’s “ministry of all the talents”’… I guess that’s supposed to be Gordon Brown?
What amused said - it’s about accountability. For all their limitations Question Time, Second Reading and Grievance debates are essential for that. As is the requirement to personally face the voters from time to time.
A person in a cabinet is a politician whether they are appointed or elected. We can call them all sorts of things, but in the end, their job is to keep the existing government in power, and they will make their decisions on that basis. The ‘cabinet’ that a president appoints in the US is a good example - the argument is that these are the best and brightest, but they are actually appointed for their political nous and connections.
The basis of democracy is that our politicians are elected, not appointed. Ergo, I think that appointment of cabinet members is a bad idea. I agree with Amused.
My despair for democracy is the tyranny of the 24-hour news cycle which demands instant answers to complex issues. I felt sorry for the Libs and Brendan Nelson as they wrestled with the issue of climate change.
The MM immediately saw the issue through the prism of leadership and so couched its questions and commentary accordingly. Anyone who has been on a committee or been in an organisation of any sort knows how change is difficult and positions ebb and flow until consensus is reached. It is the consensus that is important not the process of getting there. The MM’s attitude is immature and it shows time and time again that journalists do really have the whore’s prerogative. Unless you understand how process work and how ideas are formulated you should avoid making dumb commentary from the sidelines. The coverage of the oppositions climate change shifts was also an example of the MM inventing a narrative and trying to fit inconvenient facts into it. And speaking of invented narrative read the Australian’s coverage of Newspoll on Tuesday. The climate change figures were astonishing and should have led the paper but they were buried to give the Oz a chance to run its Costello is a winner narrative. Sadly this has become accepted wisdom among the dumb Canberra gallery even though when you read the Newspoll numbers they say nothing of a sort.
Costello is one dead smelly parrot as far as voters are concerned. He is in Fiji like Tiberius on Capri waiting on the call. If the Libs gave any sense they will never make the call.
It would be great to think that the minister appointed to run a department actually knew something about the area.
A basic qualification in economics ,for instance, should perhaps be a pre-requisite for a treasurer. I find it most strange that we are prepared to hand over a most important specialised job to an amateur whose main claim to fame is probably political savvy.
Ever since Federation an awful lot of our pollies have been absolute duds, but we’ve survived. The ones we remember are the stand-outs - people like Hughes, Curtin, Chifley, Menzies, Whitlam etc. And the occasional Minister,like Eddie Ward, Tom Uren, McEwen,or high profile parliamentarians like Stott-Despoyja, Bob Brown etc.
Of course, some poeople like Kevin Andrews or Tony Abbott or Albert Field, or even Foetus First stand out for all the wrong teasons. Maybe if we had recall by referendum, so we might have a chance to kick them out mid-terem? Or something like that.
Alan’s comment about the newscycle fits in the Paul Burns’ comment about politics seen as about personality and relating issues.
The media, for the record, can offer a blow by blow description of events unfolding, as with the purported rolling of Brendon Nelson, but it takes alittle while for the ramifications of events to sink in, which is why those interested enough to want a deeper understanding now congregate around the blogs, since the newspaper op eds, particular in the Gov Gaz, have morphed from commentary into misleading propaganda. We need to know and they, us not to know.
At the Brits Military Hosp. in Taiping ‘59 the then Minister of the Army ,a bloke named Cramer [could have been K, can’t remember] asked the Ghurka standing to attention in front of the bed next to mine, if he came from Redfern. Haven’t met too many Ministers since, but that visit didn’t inspire much confidence.
Sam: MMP is certainly more democratic than the system that we have now, but does leave itself open to minority governments. I’d probably prefer a system where there was a whole-of-nation preferential vote for which party should be in government, and then MMP for the lower house, to guarantee both local and proportional representation. Then the government of the day wouldn’t have to worry about keeping majority in the lower house, they would only need the house to pass legislation. I can’t see this variant or pure MMP actually ever being implemented here, though, so it’s all a bit academic.
Amused and others: my argument was that ministerial appointment isn’t democratic in any real way currently anyway. People can vote out a minister if they’re hideous enough, but (usually) not a minister in a safe seat, and not if they don’t live in that minister’s electorate, and only if they’re willing to give up their vote for who should be in government (assuming they’re still happy with the government anyway). Ministers from the Senate or your local upper house are even harder to split out from their party, given the number of people who vote below the line. The only ministers that you can actually have a hope of campaigning against and voting out personally are in marginal seats - which presents a conflict of interest on where the minister’s time should be spent.
People vote for the party that they want in power, and the leader of that party appoints the ministry, taking talent, factional considerations and whatever else they consider pertinent into account. That’s the reality. If you want ministerial positions to be democratic then you have to elect them directly. Don’t kid yourself that ministers appointed the way they are now are any better than they would be if appointed in exactly the same fashion but without the requirement of being in parliament. I challenge anyone to find an appointed minister from overseas somewhere who honestly would not get elected if put into a safe seat or high order ticket position by their sponsoring party.
tomd - that is not an argument for extra-parliamentary appointments to cabinet. The argument that “Dolly Downer was a wanker, but so is Condie Rice” doesn’t make a sound argument for transforming the Westminster system. Appointment to cabinet comes with an implicit commitment to that government; the cabinet should sit in parliament, with the government and be subjected to the same scrutiny as other members of that government. So they should hold a parliamentary seat.
Of course Condi would win a Senate seat if the Republicans had to find her one. But if the US president had to select their cabinet from either house, then those cabinet members could be grilled directly on governemnt decisions. As it is, the US cabinet, in my view, lacks accountability.
So the best reason people can come up with for why Ministers must be parliamentarians is that they are subject to question time.
Well, pardon me if I don’t think this is a devastating argument. Tricky questions can be answered by someone other than the Minister to whom they are directed — thus the PM can answer for the Minister if he wishes. And then give a one-word reply.
Governments can, and have in the past, treated Question Time with contempt. And the only people who will ever know about it are the 0.0001% of the population who watch it on the ABC.
“The basis of democracy is that our politicians are elected, not appointed.”
The basis of democracy is that our legislature is elected. There is no need under constitutional theory for the other two branches of government — the executive and the judiciary — to be elected.
And indeed our Constitution does not even mention the Cabinet, if I recall correctly — which suggests that the consitutional framers had no objection to a PM setting it up as he wishes.
Kevin: I agree that the lack of a question-time equivalent in the US is definitely a problem. Public servants here have to face estimates comittees and appointees have to face various hearings in the US, but there’s no regular grilling. I see no reason why ministers shouldn’t have to front parliament on a regular basis to answer questions, even if they were appointed. As it is, the opposition in the HoR can’t ask ministers from the Senate questions directly anyway, but there’s no reason that that couldn’t be remedied too.
And “Dolly Downer was a wanker, but so is Condie Rice” wasn’t my argument for appointed ministers, “Downer is as bad as Rice” was just a rebuttal of the notion that picking ministers from the parliamentary pool somehow made them more accountable to the public via the magic of democracy. It’s nice in theory, but I just don’t see it in practice. My arguments for appointed ministers were a) that currently ministers are people who did what had to be done to get into parliament, but there are lots of potentially quite good ministers out there who aren’t prepared to get into the shit-fight that is party politics, and b) ministers also have to concentrate on campaigning, sometimes in their own marginal seat, and perhaps their time could be better spent on their portfolios.
Still disagree I’m afraid tomd. It is particularly the shit-fight for political positions that makes it clear that these are politicians. To appoint somebody into a ministerial position with the argument that this somehow represents an apolitical appointee is a subterfuge. This is the argument from the septics - we have bettter administrators because we don’t have to pick politicians. What I was trying to say above is that we can’t avoid having politicians in these positions (because they are positions of power) and so we should only have politicans in these positions. As amused says above, the other alternative for people with a deep interest in a particular area is in the executive.
Paulus, our constitution (s. 64) does require people to become either senators or HR reps within three months of becoming a Minister of state.
… and the Prime Minister is not mentioned at all!
Who says the party system is broken? It seems to be running just fine to me.
Good point. Of course they’re not. I’d wager the level of control freakery runs proportionally very high in politics. From my small experience most of the backroom bunch spend most of their time trying to get around democracy. Which is an excellent reason for democracy in the first place.
.
If you had any of these people in power for life it’d be a very short while before jackboots n’ razor wire time.
Well, the Libs are dying by the sword, really. Brendan’s idea till now has apparently been to dominate the news cycle with daily confected outrage.
Now he has to work out a trick policy issues, igts biting him on the bum. Daily flip flops and confusion from Mr Doorstop.
Cautiously agree. But even in theory it has legs. A minister is answerable to her/his constituency and can be given the boot. Witness the trouble Malcolm Turnball almost had and the difficulties Brownwyn Pike most definitely had. It seems to me that it’s a question of the old dividing line between bureaucracy and government.
.
The American system has a monarch subject to a parliament, election and with a limited term. It’s arguably appropriate that s/he appoints the cabinet from wherever. I don’t think this is a good idea in the Westminister System. This is partially because I don’t think the American system is a good idea.
.
Dr Rice make work for the most obnoxious government around since Mao kicked the bucket but at least she’s got a brain and worked to get were she was. Downer?
Why does Hawker think giving total power to the PM/Premier over the Executive is better than a system where the party was able to share some of that power?
I’m agnostic on the idea of having non-MPs in cabinet. Certainly opposed if they don’t have to face parliament to answer questions, but surely you could bring them in just for question time.
However, I think Hawker does a shocking job of making the case. Lets start with this howler: “The only time any party’s numbers grow these days is when they are being fertilised by a branch stacker seeking preselection”
Unless you’re the Greens for example, in which case your membership has qudrupled in the last seven years. If Family First chose to have a genuine membership structure I’d imagine they’d be growing too.
I understand that in France MPs actually have to resign from parliament to be in Cabinet. Strikes me as very strange, and I’ll admit I haven’t checked it, but the French Greens mourned the fact that they lost one of their handful of seats when Dominique Voynet became minister for the environment and regional development. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominique_Voynet
If this is true, it would be worth exploring how well it has worked for France, rather than fiddling around with dodgy implementations by Rann and Blair.