Cabinetisation or a Westminster solution? Understanding the employment of public servants in Australian ministers’ offices

IF 2.1 4区 管理学 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Maria Maley
{"title":"Cabinetisation or a Westminster solution? Understanding the employment of public servants in Australian ministers’ offices","authors":"Maria Maley","doi":"10.1111/1467-8500.12655","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<jats:label/>This article tracks the proportion of Australian ministerial advisory staff over time who are drawn from the public service. Using a mix of parliamentary and employment data, biographical data and interviews (1984‐2018), the paper tests if there has been a dramatic decline in the number of public servants in ministers' offices, and if the Australian ministerial office is evolving towards the <jats:italic>cabinet ministeriel</jats:italic> model found in Napoleonic countries, a concept known as cabinetisation. The paper shows that the proportion of Australian advisers who are public servants on leave is lower than in the past but has been consistently around 30% since 2010. The central argument advanced in the paper is that Australia's model of ministerial office has critical differences from Napoleonic <jats:italic>ministerial cabinets</jats:italic> and there is no evidence of cabinetisation. It argues that rather than bending towards European models, Australia's ministerial office is a response to peculiarly Westminster challenges and tensions, provoked by Washington aspirations. The paper shows that the institutional architecture of Australia's Westminster variant produces distinct and in some ways paradoxical dynamics: the separation designed to protect departments' impartiality threatens their marginalisation, leading to a push for greater presence in ministerial offices, despite the inherent frictions and risks of politicisation.Points for practitioners<jats:list list-type=\"bullet\"> <jats:list-item>There is a significant level of exchange between departments and ministers’ offices under the <jats:italic>Members of Parliament (Staff) Act</jats:italic> in Australia which can create frictions when staff return to departments.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>The exchange is encouraged and desired by departments and seen as helping to address disconnection and lack of understanding between ministers’ offices and departments.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>However, the practice is limited by the recruitment preferences of ministers, who are wary of depoliticisation, seek a mix of backgrounds and skills in their offices, and have a ready supply of political cadres to draw on.</jats:list-item> <jats:list-item>The Thodey Review's recommendations to increase the number of public servants in ministers’ offices, and that Senior Executive Service officers work as advisers as part of their training, are unlikely to be accepted by ministers.</jats:list-item></jats:list>","PeriodicalId":47373,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12655","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article tracks the proportion of Australian ministerial advisory staff over time who are drawn from the public service. Using a mix of parliamentary and employment data, biographical data and interviews (1984‐2018), the paper tests if there has been a dramatic decline in the number of public servants in ministers' offices, and if the Australian ministerial office is evolving towards the cabinet ministeriel model found in Napoleonic countries, a concept known as cabinetisation. The paper shows that the proportion of Australian advisers who are public servants on leave is lower than in the past but has been consistently around 30% since 2010. The central argument advanced in the paper is that Australia's model of ministerial office has critical differences from Napoleonic ministerial cabinets and there is no evidence of cabinetisation. It argues that rather than bending towards European models, Australia's ministerial office is a response to peculiarly Westminster challenges and tensions, provoked by Washington aspirations. The paper shows that the institutional architecture of Australia's Westminster variant produces distinct and in some ways paradoxical dynamics: the separation designed to protect departments' impartiality threatens their marginalisation, leading to a push for greater presence in ministerial offices, despite the inherent frictions and risks of politicisation.Points for practitioners There is a significant level of exchange between departments and ministers’ offices under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act in Australia which can create frictions when staff return to departments. The exchange is encouraged and desired by departments and seen as helping to address disconnection and lack of understanding between ministers’ offices and departments. However, the practice is limited by the recruitment preferences of ministers, who are wary of depoliticisation, seek a mix of backgrounds and skills in their offices, and have a ready supply of political cadres to draw on. The Thodey Review's recommendations to increase the number of public servants in ministers’ offices, and that Senior Executive Service officers work as advisers as part of their training, are unlikely to be accepted by ministers.
内阁化还是威斯敏斯特解决方案?了解澳大利亚部长办公室雇用公务员的情况
本文追踪了澳大利亚部长顾问人员中来自公共服务部门的人员比例。通过混合使用议会和就业数据、传记数据和访谈(1984-2018 年),本文检验了部长办公室的公务员人数是否急剧下降,以及澳大利亚部长办公室是否正在向拿破仑时代国家的内阁部长模式演变,这一概念被称为内阁化。论文显示,澳大利亚顾问中休假的公务员比例低于以往,但自 2010 年以来一直保持在 30% 左右。本文提出的核心论点是,澳大利亚的部长办公模式与拿破仑时期的部长内阁有着本质区别,没有内阁化的迹象。论文认为,澳大利亚的部长办公室并没有向欧洲模式靠拢,而是为了应对威斯敏斯特特有的挑战和紧张局势,这些挑战和紧张局势是由华盛顿的愿望引发的。论文表明,澳大利亚威斯敏斯特模式的制度架构产生了独特的、在某些方面自相矛盾的动力:旨在保护部门公正性的分立制度威胁到了部门的边缘化,从而导致尽管存在固有的摩擦和政治化风险,但仍有更多的人员在部长办公室任职。各部门鼓励并希望进行这种交流,并认为这有助于解决部长办公室与各部门之间脱节和缺乏了解的问题。然而,这种做法受到部长们招聘偏好的限制,他们对非政治化持谨慎态度,希望其办公室能有不同背景和技能的人员,并有现成的政治干部可以利用。索迪审查报告》建议增加部长办公室的公务员人数,并建议高级行政官员在培训期间担任顾问,但这些建议不太可能被部长们接受。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
9.10%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Aimed at a diverse readership, the Australian Journal of Public Administration is committed to the study and practice of public administration, public management and policy making. It encourages research, reflection and commentary amongst those interested in a range of public sector settings - federal, state, local and inter-governmental. The journal focuses on Australian concerns, but welcomes manuscripts relating to international developments of relevance to Australian experience.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信