Research Paper 23 1999-2000

Australian Parliamentary Democracy After a Century: What Gains, What Losses?

Elaine Thompson, Consultant
Politics and Public Administration Group
6 June 2000

Contents

Continuity and Change, 1967-2000

Conclusion

Endnotes

References

The Australian system of representative parliamentary democracy is one of a handful which has, across the last one hundred years, shown remarkable stability and flexibility and in which democratic values have thrived. Constitutional and political conventions have continued to evolve reflecting both the stability and flexibility of the system. Despite Australia's own increasing diversity since World War II democracy, stability and flexibility have continued as the defining characteristics of the Australian parliamentary system.

The domination of politics by the Executive makes it easy to downplay the role of Parliament. However Parliament has been central to Australia's success as a stable, flexible, democratic country. Parliament has reflected and indeed helped develop Australia's practical and pragmatic approach to great Constitutional issues and its optimistic approach and willingness to experiment with institutional and electoral arrangements. The Australian political system demonstrates, over time, a remarkable faith in the ability of its parliamentary structures to adapt and deal with changing demands. Representative parliamentary government was established by our Federation Fathers as the hallmark of the political system and has continued to expand and develop over the past one hundred years.

The system revolves ultimately around the role of the Parliament as the centrepiece of elected representative and responsible governing, a system which involves backbenchers as well as members of the Ministry or Shadow Ministry.

A look at the first 100 years of Australian federation shows that representative Government was a foundation stone of the Australian system and has remained so, expanding and changing over the century. The Australian system gives a centre place to the people's ability to vote:

• the Australian people voted for the delegates to the Federation Convention
• when a draft of the Constitution had been created, it was sent to the people for their vote and its acceptance rested on success at the ballot box
• referendums were embedded as the only means for altering the Australian Constitution, and
• a Double Dissolution followed by a general election was the system deliberately chosen to resolve deadlocks between the two elected Houses of Parliament.

Throughout the century there has been an expansion of those eligible to vote and of those able to stand for Parliament:

• at Federation both Houses were uniquely, at the time in the world, to be directly elected by universal male franchise
• by 1904 the vote was extended to women as was the right to stand for Parliament
• in 1962 the Indigenous peoples were enfranchised, and
• in 1973 the voting age was lowered to 18.

Alongside the extension of the franchise were consistent attempts to make the Parliament more representative through alterations to the voting systems:

• at Federation, the secret ballot and the simple majority system were introduced for both Houses
• compulsion in the enrolment of electors was introduced in 1911, as was Saturday voting
• compulsion in voting was brought in for referendums in 1915, and for elections in 1924
• preferential voting replaced first-part-the-post (simple majority) voting for the House in 1918 and for the Senate in 1919
• proportional representation was introduced for the Senate in 1948, and
• in the 1970s 'one vote, one value' was established for the election of the House of Representatives.

Ideas of Representation have also developed across the century. The Australian Parliament has shown itself able to adapt to the changing ideas of representation, giving voice to Australia's diversity; and the changes have enabled the Australian political system to remain stable:

• a stable bipolar party system developed which represented the major economic interests of Australians
• as Australia became more diverse minor parties developed to supplement and complement the economic interests represented by the major parties, adding for example issues concerned with the environment, women, Indigenous peoples, and open government
• parliament reflected the diversity in terms of the election of more women to parliament and in terms of the election of more political parties representing a greater variety of opinion, and
• the Senate has been of particular importance in the expansion of elected representation.

The stable bipolar party system which enabled the vast majority of Australians to identify with, and vote for one or other side, combined with tight party discipline to create a system of stable responsible government has:

• since 1910 (except for the periods of party splits) party discipline ensured the stability of Governments through the control of the majority in the Lower House
• the disciplined parties overwhelmed the Federation Fathers' attempt to create an Upper House that represented the interests of the States. Both Houses became party houses
• the parties overwhelmed the role of Parliament in terms of responsible government and the system became one of responsible party government
• the fears at Federation of major conflicts between the Houses of Parliament leading to instability at best, and an unworkable system at worst, proved unfounded
• mass party government and Executive domination of Parliament reached its high point in the 1960s
• since the 1970s minor parties emerged to hold the balance of power in the Senate. As a result that House has challenged the absolute domination of Parliament by the Executive
• parliament has been able to hold governments more accountable than in the past, negotiating amendments to legislation including Budget measures, and holding ministers more accountable for their personal and financial behaviour
• despite the increased role of Parliament, Executive domination remains a hallmark of Australian politics. As a consequence large numbers of voters have become alienated, and have either given their support to minor parties or voted in increasingly volatile and unpredictable ways, and
• the developments in the direction of a more managerialist State represent a fundamental challenge to the idea that the Executive is directly accountable to the elected representative institutions of the Parliament.

The distribution of powers in the Constitution combined with the political norms of Australian party politics and the Australian political culture to create a unique system of parliamentary government, a Washminster Mutation drawing particularly on the systems of the United Kingdom and the US but, from the beginning, created as an original system. The qualities of the Australian system have, over time, emphasised its unique characteristics. Constitutional and political conventions have continued to evolve to enable the system to adapt in ways relevant to the Australian environment. For example:

• the Federation Fathers believed that, because the Senate comprised men [sic] of common sense, it would never use 'its big gun' and reject the Budget. That convention, while sorely tested in 1974 and 1975, still stands
• a convention existed from 1901 until 1975 that Senate vacancies would be filled by members of the party from which the retiring member had come. While that convention was twice broken, political reaction to those breaches, and the consequences of them, led to the successful passage of a constitutional amendment embedding the convention as constitutional law
• as a result of the changed nature in the balance of power between the Governing House and the Senate since the rise of minor parties in the 1960s, a new convention has developed whereby Governments 'stockpile' 'trigger' bills that have fulfilled the constitutional requirements for a double dissolution, thus enabling the Government to call for a double dissolution if the Senate proves too hostile
• the role of the Governor-General continues to evolve. Since the 1975 actions of the Governor-General in dismissing a Prime Minister and dissolving the Parliament, the powers of the Governor-General are recognised as more than symbolic; relations between the Prime Minister and the Governor-General have since that time involved negotiation. The exact limits on the 'appropriate behaviour' of the Governor-General are still not settled
• the Senate has undergone great change. At Federation it was expected to represent the interests of the States, an expectation that was never fulfilled and quickly become obsolete and indeed conventions were established by which the Senate was a second party house, albeit a house where party discipline was, marginally, less tight than that in the popular House. By the late 1940s the Senate appeared irrelevant and its legitimacy was weak. Since the introduction of proportional representation (PR) in 1949 and the development of minor parties the Senate's role as an active second chamber reviewing and, on occasion, rejecting government proposals has been gaining increasing legitimacy, and
• the 19th century conventions of individual ministerial responsibility have, during the 20th century, changed in Australia, as well as in Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Ministers are no longer expected to be the sole vehicle of responsibility for the actions of government departments and agencies. There is a growing convention since the 1980s that the relevant senior Executive can and should be held accountable, and if necessary, resign. Ministers no longer automatically resign, even on issues of personal culpability. Resignation now rests on the judgement of the Prime Minister.

This examination leads to the conclusions that:

• representative government continues to expand in ways that are essentially reflective of the changing nature of Australia's people and their interests. On the whole that expansion has helped the Australian system remain stable and democratic
• responsible government was embedded quickly into the Australian system and has remained dominant
• because of the highly democratic, open nature, elections quickly developed as the centrepieces of Australian parliamentary democracy and have continued as the major mechanisms through which Governments are seen as legitimate. Largely because of the centrality and legitimacy of elections, Australia's system has shown extraordinary stability, including the relative ease with which it negotiated the Constitutional Crisis of 1975
• Executive domination of Parliament and the domination of the major parties developed quickly in Australia and have continued throughout the century
• Executive domination has been challenged to some extent by the rise of minor parties holding the balance of power in the Senate; and the expansion of the committee system of the Parliament backed by increased expertise and information
• the federal elements built into the parliamentary system in terms of the powers given to the Senate have remained largely submerged, overwhelmed by the political parties, and
• the changing role of Government challenges traditional definitions of responsible parliamentary government.

Introduction

Outside of the requirement for free, regular, unavoidable, non-corrupt, competitive elections, there is no standard set of rules for defining a democracy. As a result, care needs to be taken not to generalise.

This research paper attempts to judge certain aspects of Australia's parliamentary democracy in their own terms.⁽¹⁾ In particular it looks at the relationships between the people and the Parliament as their elected representative institution, and at Parliament's role in holding Government responsible and accountable, examining the ways these relationships have changed across the past one hundred years.

The Role of Parliament: a Brief Overview

At Federation, Australia's parliamentary system reflected its environment and heritage and created a unique set of political institutional arrangements. In the century that has followed that dual tradition continued-the Australian system continues to reflect its environment and heritage, and continues its development as a unique system.

While the Australian system is unique, as in other democracies, the Australian Parliament performs certain tasks. It embodies the 'mass consent' by the people to be governed by forming the link between the will of the people and the acts of the Government. Parliament acts as an electoral college for the Executive (the Government), and can play a part in the selection and deposition of members of the Executive. When a Legislature votes on and approves legislation, and in particular the budgetary bills, it is performing a manifest act of legitimation on the Government of the day.

Finally any constitutional amendment must first gain the support of at least one House of the Parliament.

This paper explores the elements of the parliamentary system which are regarded as democratic and the ways in which they have changed, and looks in particular at the Constitutional and political conventions that have developed over the last one hundred years. The paper 'weighs up' the democratic and populist impulses of the Australian way of doing politics against its more conservative elements. The paper is divided into three parts:

The Beginnings-colonial times to 1910;

Establishing the System-1910-1967: embedding of responsible party government;

Continuity and change-1967-2000

Within each part certain themes will be explored, including:

• the role of the vote and free and fair elections
• the nature of responsible government
• the role of the parties
• the role of the Senate
• Executive-Legislative relations, and
• evolving political and constitutional conventions.

The Beginnings-Colonial Times to 1910

Democratic Traditions and the People's Vote

Australia's history has, in the main, been one of enthusiasm for a particular form of democracy, largely concerned with the creation of a representative system through the expansion of eligibility to vote and the expansion of those able to stand for Parliament. The ability of ordinary people to vote and to stand for Parliament were seen, in Australia, as the centrepieces of democracy.

The Australian colonies were seen in the second half of the nineteenth century, as the 'democratic laboratory' of the world. Between 1852 and the turn of the 20th century, the colonies abolished plural voting; lifted residency restrictions on voter eligibility allowing large numbers of 'migratory' people such as drovers, shearers, cane-cutters and sailors, to vote; Australia introduced payment for members of Parliament, allowing rich and poor alike to stand for election; gave the vote to women; and, at a time when the secret ballot was still being denounced as 'un-English' in England, and as the 'kangaroo ballot' in America, it was the norm in Australia. The colony of Victoria moved quickly to elect its Upper House, along with the Lower House, a move which can already be seen as marking a radical Australian departure from the Westminster tradition with its hereditary House of Lords, and reflecting the more egalitarian Australian political culture. ⁽²⁾

The methods through which the Federal Constitution was created also centred around voting. In contrast to the American Founding Fathers, Australia's Federation Fathers were no self-appointed lot, they were voted for by the Australian people. When a draft of the Constitution had been created, it was sent to the people for their vote and its acceptance rested on success at the ballot box.⁽³⁾

At Federation, popular democracy as expressed by the vote was firmly embedded in a system in which both Houses of Parliament, Upper and Lower, were directly elected, and universal suffrage was quickly introduced. ⁽⁴⁾

Some of the States had been exploring new voting systems which seemed more fair and just than the simple majority (first-past-the-post) systems then in use. In 1900 the Victorian Assembly examined a bill to introduce proportional representation (PR) as the basis to elect Victoria's first Commonwealth senators, and to introduce preferential voting for electing Victoria's House of Representatives members. While this bill lapsed it indicated the openness of Australia to electoral experimentation. More successful were the reforms introduced in 1896 by Tasmania's Attorney-General, and a leading exponent of electoral reform, Andrew Inglis Clark. Tasmania adopted the Hare-Clark method of PR, initially for application in Hobart and Launceston. It was used in 1901 for the election of Commonwealth Senators and Members of the House of Representatives from Tasmania; and was accepted Tasmania-wide in 1907. ⁽⁵⁾

The Commonwealth Electoral Bill of 1902 sought to bring uniformity to the election of members of the Federal Parliament. Amongst the ideas canvassed were PR for the Senate, and single-member divisions with preferential voting for the House. As Reid and Forrest commented, 'With the wisdom of eighty-five years of hindsight it is easily seen now that the major proposals of 1902 were decades ahead of their time.'⁽⁶⁾

While these ideas were not accepted, what was introduced was highly democratic for its time-the franchise was broad; the secret ballot was accepted and the electoral systems chosen were broadly democratic: for both Houses the systems chosen were intended to ensure the voice of the majority of the people.

In these developments Australia's constitutional arrangements were radical and created a system closer to mid-twentieth century ideas of representative parliamentary democracy than the late-nineteenth century systems then in existence.

Federation: Federalism and Responsible Government

While the Federation Fathers decided that responsible government should be the political system of the new Federation, that decision was no foregone conclusion. During the various Federation Conventions that occurred in the 1890s other alternatives were raised, as were concerns regarding the problems with combining federalism and responsible government. For example, during the 1891 Constitutional Convention debates Alfred Deakin was much concerned that the Constitution be a coherent whole. He believed that federalism could not be combined with responsible government:

In 1897 the Honourable Sir Richard Baker, a South Australian delegate, and President of the Legislative Council in that colony, believed that federalism would be overwhelmed:

Despite these misgivings, the Federation Fathers drew extensively on the American, Swiss and British systems, and on colonial experience, and then drew up clauses with respect to the powers of the two Houses of Parliament that were different to all the systems from which they drew. Australia did not simply combine 'bits' of responsible government from Westminster with the federal 'bits' from Washington but created a new set of relationships, unknown in the US, Britain, Switzerland and the colonies. The Australian system was a new species, a species I long ago dubbed the Washminster mutation.⁽⁹⁾ That is why it needs to be judged in its own terms.

Of course Australia drew in large part on the American model for the details of the federal arrangements. However in the US, federalism is seen as another component in its overall commitment to a 'weak' system of government with divided powers. Powers are divided horizontally among the arms of government (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) and are divided by federalism vertically between levels of government (National, States and Local). Federalism suited America's political traditions not only because it enabled its stubborn, suspicious and very different States to come together in a union but also because it formed another layer of protection against tyranny. There were even some of the American founders who felt that federalism was not sufficient a protection against tyranny. For example:

Australia federated almost entirely because it was politically sensible-as a practical, realistic way of bringing the States together for common benefit while protecting their individual interests. There was almost no fear of strong government, let alone fear of the possible tyranny over the people by government. The clearest example of this can be seen in the Federation debates on the election of the Senate. There was no concern expressed about the domination of the people by government.

The idea of copying Washington with a Senate whose members were nominated by the State Governments was rejected outright, and universal male franchise for electing the Senate was accepted enthusiastically. To give one example from the Federation debates the Right Honourable Charles Cameron Kingston (Premier of South Australia) declared:

The most vigorous debate centred on whether or not the Senate ought to copy America in one respect by incorporating equal representation of the States; or whether representation in the Senate ought to reflect the population of each State-what the Federation Fathers called PR. Those in favour of equal representation looked to America, Switzerland, and the ancient Greek federations: the Achaean League and the Aetolian League; those against also drew on ancient Greece and pointed to the Lycian League. ⁽¹²⁾

Despite a strong commitment by many of the Federation Fathers to the 'democratic' idea of representation in proportion to population, almost all of them yielded on the grounds of practicality. For example, the Honourable Isaac Alfred Isaacs (the Attorney-General of Victoria) declared:

Creating A Second Chamber

The existence of an Upper House in the National Parliament of Australia drew on the traditions of the US, Britain and the Australian colonies. All these systems had created strong Upper Houses to check the Lower. However the reasons for this check varied greatly.

At Westminster a House of non-elected aristocrats actively checked the will of the Government formed from the elected House. The Australian colonies quickly rejected the notion of a 'bunyip aristocracy' but all chose to keep a Legislative Council (elected or appointed) as a second chamber to check the Legislative Assembly.

The American tradition believed in checking 'interests against interests' by pitting the popularly elected Lower House against the interests of the States as represented in the nominated Senate with the overall aim of minimising the powers of government. That view, derived from notions of the separation of powers, was rejected by the Australian Federation Fathers.

When the federal Senate was created it shared elements from all three traditions-colonial, Westminster and Washington. It copied the American model by giving equal representation to the States regardless of population size. It departed from the American model (and of course the Westminster model) by choosing to elect its Upper House. It departed from the colonies by choosing to elect its second chamber by universal male franchise. Virtually all the Federation Fathers assumed that the colonial Upper Houses in the States would disappear. To the creators of Australia's federal Constitution there was little logic for the existence of State Upper Houses: if they were elected on the same basis as the Lower House they were an unnecessary duplication of the democratic will; if they were elected or appointed on a restricted franchise, they were an anti-democratic brake on the popular will. ⁽¹⁵⁾

However an Upper House was accepted as necessary for the new Federation because the smaller States would not join without such a House. Nonetheless many of the Federation fathers were concerned about the powers of the Senate in its role as a check on the popular House. For example, the Honourable Sir Graham Berry (the Speaker in the Victorian parliament) made suggestions to ensure the predominance of the House of Representatives. He drew on what was very much in the Australian democratic tradition, by suggesting that the democratic way out of deadlocks between the Houses was to go to the people via referendum.

The idea that a Second Chamber could deadlock a Government over a piece of legislation, and not itself face the people was rejected absolutely. While the idea of holding a referendum on the deadlocked issue was rejected by the Federation Fathers, a number of alternatives were canvassed before the acceptance of the present Constitutional arrangement whereby a double dissolution of both Houses occurs followed by a general election.

Another key concern involved the Senate's powers to reject money bills, a power which meant that the Second Chamber could bring down the House which embodied responsible Government-the Lower House, and with it the elected Government:

The complex deadlock procedures, and the clauses with respect to the powers over money bills all reflect compromises negotiated to give the Senate powers sufficient to satisfy delegates from the smaller States and so ensure Federation; and at the same time, to give the Government created from the Lower popular House powers sufficient to ensure that responsible government survived.

The complex arrangements put in place in Australia involved a balancing act. The Federation Fathers had rejected the idea that the Senate could deadlock the government over a piece of legislation and had created the mechanism of the double dissolution to deal with that problem. Yet there was no such mechanism were the Senate to reject the Budget. In a Westminster-based system of responsible government, budget rejection by either House meant that government could no longer continue. The governing party must either yield power to the Opposition, if the Opposition could itself secure the passage of the Budget; or, more likely, the House of Representatives must go to an election. Because the Senate is elected for a fixed term, except when the requirements for a double dissolution have been met, the Senate could remain in power. Thus, in the case of the rejection of the Budget, the Federation Fathers had put in place a system in which the Senate can force the House to an election, without itself having to simultaneously face the people.

Even in 1897 some delegates were concerned as to whether the balance between the Houses could be maintained. For example, the Honourable Sir Richard Baker from South Australia asked whether:

Sir Richard went on to draw a simile that has become famous over the last one hundred years:

Despite misgivings such as these, the Federation Fathers chose consciously to create a parliamentary system of responsible government with a Federal Senate which could refuse the Budget and deadlock normal legislation. The system was, at Federation, and continues to be, a uniquely Australian system. ⁽²⁰⁾ Given the practical politics of Federation, the Federation Fathers believed they had created a highly representative system in that the people voted for both Houses; and in cases of legislative deadlock the Government could choose to take both Houses to the people at an election. The Federation Fathers also believed they had created a system of responsible parliamentary government because the Government was created from the majority in the popular House and stayed in power only with the support of that House, and because the House of Representatives alone could initiate and change money bills.

1910-1967 Embedding Responsible Government and the Party System

Australia continued its enthusiastic commitment to popular democracy and pragmatic politics. Universal suffrage (with the important exclusion of the Indigenous peoples) was quickly introduced as was the right of all those eligible to vote also to be eligible to stand for Parliament. Australians continued to see democracy as centred on the vote.

When Bryce, whose book on America greatly influenced the Federation Fathers of the Australian Constitution, visited Australia in 1912 he commented that Australia had 'travelled farthest and fastest along the road which leads to the unlimited rule of the multitude'⁽²¹⁾ and that the 'voters may indulge their uncontrolled will for any and every purpose that may for the moment command itself to them'. ⁽²²⁾ He believed that the Australian system of representative government had enabled the masses to swiftly and completely exert their sovereignty.

While Bryce (and others) had considerable misgivings about such mass democracy, few in Australia shared those misgivings. Australian politicians and parties readily experimented with voting systems which they believed would advance popular democracy and pragmatic politics. Between 1911 and 1962 major reforms to the electoral systems were introduced. Compulsion in the enrolment of electors was introduced in 1911, as was Saturday voting; compulsion in voting was brought in for referendums in 1915, and for elections in 1924. First-part-the-post (simple majority) voting was replaced with preferential voting for the House in 1918 and for the Senate in 1919; and PR introduced for the Senate in 1948. ⁽²³⁾

The introduction of PR into the Senate was heralded as the introduction of a much more democratic system because a number of elections in the 1919-1946 period had produced unfair representation of the parties with very little correlation between the votes received and the seats won. For example, in 1925 the Labor party received 45 per cent of the votes and no Senate seats; in 1943 the UAP/CP had received 38 per cent of the vote and no seats; and in 1946 the Liberal/CP had received 43 per cent of the vote and only three seats. The 1937 result perhaps best illustrated the haphazard nature of the results: Labor with 48 per cent of the vote gained 16 seats; the UAP/CP with 45 per cent of the vote received only three seats. ⁽²⁴⁾

Despite the unhappiness in the Opposition regarding the timing of the change to PR, the Commonwealth Electoral Bill 1948 successfully passed without amendment. With that change the radical vision of the original 1902 proposals became a reality-with the added bonus of compulsory voting, the commitment to which remained strong both among the people at large and most politicians. ⁽²⁵⁾ Finally in 1962 Australia became a 'modern' democracy with the passage of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1962 which enfranchised Australia's Indigenous peoples. ⁽²⁶⁾

The Dominance of Responsible Government

The embedding in Australia of a strong, stable, federal system of responsible government seemed to fly in the face of the fears expressed at the Federation Conventions regarding the creation of an inherently inconsistent, and potentially unworkable system.

Simply put, the development of an highly disciplined stable bipolar party system in the 1910 to 1967 period overwhelmed the role of the Senate. Despite a Constitution which gave equal voice to the federal Upper House; despite the fact that the Senate was elected on the same suffrage as the Lower House; and despite the equal representation of the States in the Senate, the hopes of the Federation Fathers that the Senate would be a States' House never eventuated. Party discipline dominated both Houses and the fears about the Senate's capacity to dominate the popular House through the deadlock and Budget provisions, proved unfounded. The prediction that it would never use 'its big gun' proved accurate. The Australian system from 1910 to 1967 largely functioned as a responsible parliamentary government, a fact that would have brought a degree of satisfaction to those Federation Fathers who had never accepted the idea of a federal House at all, let alone one with substantial powers to thwart the Government formed from the Lower House.

Making the System Work: Political and Constitutional Conventions

To achieve the domination of responsible government, a series of constitutional and political conventions developed which enabled the Australian Constitution to function as if it were (almost) a pure Westminster system. Many of these conventions were identical to those that had developed in Britain, and were simply transferred into the Australian system.

Forming a Government

The central convention was that the political Executive (the Government) was chosen from among the elected members of the party which had the majority in the Lower House. Ministers are members of the Legislature first and last. The Government (the Executive) as a whole remained in power only with the continued support of the Lower House-the Executive was accountable and responsible to the Lower House. This convention is the democratic heart of the Westminster system: the popular House (the Lower House) selects the Government which remains in power only so long as that House allows; and the popular House and the Executive face the people at elections for judgement together. In addition, individual ministers are accountable to the Parliament for the conduct of their own policy departments and if found culpable of maladministration or personally culpable they are to resign (individual ministerial responsibility).

The political parties brought with them political conventions:

• that elected members almost always vote along party lines and that except in extreme circumstances the majority in the Lower House supports the Government.

These political conventions brought an extraordinary degree of stability to government.

However Australia could not just copy the constitutional and political conventions developed in Britain, because unlike Britain, Australia had a written Constitution which needed conventions additional to those at Westminster in order to translate the Australian system into one of responsible government.

The Powers of the Governor-General and the Senate 1910-1967

According to the written Constitution, the Executive is made up of the Governor-General who is appointed by the Monarch. The Governor-General has the powers to dismiss and prorogue the Parliament at will, and is also Head of the Armed Services. The Governor-General may seek the advice of the Executive Council made up of officers (ministers) whom he (she) appoints. The only restriction on the Governor-General is that these ministers must be members of the Parliament-from either the Upper or Lower House. Nowhere does the Constitution mention the words Prime Minister or Cabinet. It does not describe the parliamentary system of responsible government at all.

The constitutional conventions that developed stressed that, like the role of the British Monarch, the Governor-General must be consulted and that the formal processes be abided by: all bills must be signed by the Governor-General before they become law and the Executive Council must meet and keep formal minutes of its decisions. Other conventions developed that stressed that the position of Governor-General was largely ceremonial and symbolic in that the Governor-Generalship kept the Australian Head of State 'above' and beyond politics. In normal political situations the Governor-General would act on the advice of the 'real' political Head of Government, the Prime Minister. The Governor-General would call elections at the Prime Minister's request and only sign bills into law at the Prime Minister's request.

Conventions developed which stressed that the Senate would not use its powers to challenge major legislation or to reject Supply and destroy the Government of the day (its 'big gun'). The Senate was frequently used as a retirement House by the parties and seen as largely irrelevant.

While these various conventions meant that during this period the Australian system closely copied Westminster, there were still some major differences. At Westminster, there is no written Constitution and the Lower House of Parliament was sovereign. In Australia, with a written Constitution, despite conventions which apparently limited the role of the Senate and the role of the Governor-General, the Parliament was still subject to the Constitution as interpreted by the High Court and limited by State Governments with significant powers. The written Constitution divides power, as in the US, between layers of government (Federal and State) and separates power between institutions of government with an independent Judiciary and a Parliament with two powerful Houses. Limited government was put in place at Federation and formed the bedrock of the system. The Lower House was not sovereign.

Political Parties and the Role of Parliament 1910-1967

The domination of Parliament by a disciplined bipolar party system meant that the House of Representatives came to be seen at worst as a theatre of meaningless ritual and at best as a institution under the foot of the Executive. Bagehot's description of the system of responsible government as a system which between elections functioned as an 'elected despotism' was reasonably accurate. While the Opposition could criticise Government policy, they could not force change. Party discipline ensured that the Government could get its way with the Parliament. The domination of Parliament by the Executive appeared complete when in 1963 the House of Representatives abolished its Westminster-based system for dealing with financial legislation. That system had been adopted in 1901 when the House set up Committees of the whole House to deal with Supply, Ways and Means and Money. Reid and Forrest commented that the decision to end its 'Westminster-based superstructure for financial legislation' had been influenced 'by the certainties of party majorities'. With the ending of this special House-based system for dealing with finance, the House had demonstrated the extent to which it was under Executive influence by abandoning 'all pretence at having special financial responsibilities' as well as neglecting its wider legislative responsibilities. ⁽²⁷⁾ These changes raised serious questions as to whether the system could be accurately described as one of responsible government at all!

That the system could develop in this way, with almost total Executive dominance had been recognised by the Federation Fathers. Indeed at the 1891 Constitutional Convention, Sir Samuel Griffith argued that 'the US had adopted the most ''opposite'' system of government to responsible government' because the 'framers of the American Constitution had been frightened by the tendency then lately exhibited in the United Kingdom (UK) of ministers to overawe Parliament'. ⁽²⁸⁾

The highly disciplined two-party system was the mechanism through which the modern system of responsible party government emerged. As Peter Loveday pointed out, 'federal politics was party politics from the beginning and did not pass through a non-party phase. ⁽²⁹⁾ From federation onwards, elections were contested by parties: in 1901 three parties (Protectionist, Free Trade and Labor) contested the election and when the first parliament met in May, none of the parties had an absolute majority in either house. Those parties also contested the elections of 1903 and 1906, at which time the Free Traders were renamed the Anti-Socialists. From that time, the main partisan divide came to be socialism versus anti-socialism and 'it became increasingly clear that it was only a matter of time, manoeuvre and negotiation before the parties were reduced to two-Labor and Liberal'. ⁽³⁰⁾

Group commitment then was an embedded part of the Australian federal system. Party discipline came to be regarded as natural, 'what had once been a reproach, that a man was a joint in the tail of some leader and was incapable of exercising his own judgment, came to be praised as proper loyalty to party'. ⁽³¹⁾

Around a bipolar party system, party discipline and responsible government, was built a system which enabled the Executive to overwhelm the Parliament and which overwhelmed the constitutional conventions of ministerial responsibility and Cabinet responsibility. Party discipline ensured that the Cabinet not the Parliament dominated. Ministers were far more answerable to Cabinet (and indeed to the Prime Minister alone) than to the Parliament as a whole.

Nonetheless the system had great strengths. Unavoidable, highly competitive, regular elections with universal suffrage remained, ultimately, the greatest measure of democratic accountability of Government to the people. The use of compulsory voting; the use of preferential voting for the House; a highly professional system for running elections, and ensuring the fairness of elections; and the relative ease with which the vast majority of the eligible voters could access the polls, meant that the Government formed from the party⁽³²⁾ with the majority of the seats in the House, had great legitimacy. ⁽³³⁾ In contrast to the US, Australian Executives could go to the polls with new policies and once elected, successfully introduce those policies-with some dramatic exceptions which usually involved a party split. These splits occurred in both the Labor and conservative groupings, the most important being: ⁽³⁴⁾

• the 1916 Split in the Labor Party over conscription
• the formation of the Australian Country Party (now the National Party). While this split ended the fusion of non-Labor parties into the Liberal Party that had occurred in 1909-10, it began a formal, continuing relationship between the rural party and the urban-based conservative parties. While relations between these parties were far from smooth, with disagreements often resulting in separate campaigning, the 'Country and Liberal parties ... were united in their opposition to Labor' and that commitment contributed to the stability of the bipolar party system
• the 1931 split in the Labor party leading to the emergence of the United Australia Party which combined a group of right-wing Labor members with the Nationalists
• the collapse in the early 1940s of the United Australia Party into what Jaensch called 'warring factions'. The end result of that collapse was the creation, by Robert Menzies in 1944, of the modern Liberal Party, and
• the fifth split occurred within the ALP in the mid-1950s and led to the emergence of the Democratic Labour Party (the DLP).

The first four of these splits involved internal party fissions and realignments while the fifth led to the emergence of a minor party.

Some of the party splits led to the collapse of governments; others kept one party or other out of government for considerable periods. Most of the history of Australian party politics, and the fate of governments from 1910-1973 can be read as leading to, being driven by, or being influenced profoundly by the splits. Issues, ideologies and policies were also influenced dramatically, as were the voting attachments of Australians.

Nonetheless, the Australian bipolar party system itself remained strong, both in terms of party organisation-for these were the only two groupings which fielded candidates in all States and in all, or virtually all seats; and in terms of electorate support, especially in the House of Representatives. The existence of that party system meant that for at least the first sixty years of this century, most commentators believed there was meaningful competition for government between the two party groupings for the people's vote and that the Parliament was representative in that it was believed that the two parties represented the broad economic and political interests of the people.

Except during periods of actual party collapse, the system ensured strong government-an elected Government could guarantee the successful passage of its policies-and Governments justified their actions in populist democratic language. 'Majoritarianism' was seen as the essence of parliamentary democracy-the people elected a party which commanded the majority of seats in the Lower House, and from that party a Government was formed. The policies of that Government should not be thwarted. The only relevant test of a Government's behaviour was judgement by the majority at elections-between elections, the Government's will was the people's will. Between 1910 and the late 1960s that view largely prevailed.

Defenders of the system have called it responsible party government arguing that the weak position of the popular House with respect to the Executive did not matter because the parties represented the people and the political Executive was controlled by the parties. Party control was deemed to be equal to democratic parliamentary responsibility. Disraeli had made the point as early as 1848, 'you cannot choose between party government and parliamentary government. I say, you can have no parliamentary government if you have no party government'. ⁽³⁵⁾

Continuity and Change, 1967-2000

The Role of Parliament

While party government continued dominant, important changes occurred between 1967 and 2000 marking out this period as different from the earlier periods. The changes involved:

• changing perceptions of the nature of representation and the representative nature of Parliament
• challenges to majoritarianism and to the argument that party government was responsible democratic government
• a weakening of party line voting and the rise of 'ticket-splitting'
• the rise of minor parties and independents
• the strengthening of the Senate's role as a check on the Government (as a traditional Upper House)
• the emergence of women as parliamentary representatives, ministers and as parliamentary and party leaders
• confrontation between the Senate and the Government of the day (of whatever political persuasion)
• the 1975 Constitutional Crisis and the ensuing changes to political and constitutional conventions (and to the Constitution), and
• challenges to the role of Government and the public sector accompanied by challenges to Parliament's role in holding Government accountable and generally to its role in governmental oversight.

Representative Democracy and the People's Vote

The Major Parties

As briefly mentioned at the start of this paper, to be democratic a system must have unavoidable regular elections in which, in the famous words of Schattschneider, individuals seeking office engage in genuine competition for the people's vote. ⁽³⁶⁾

Until the late 1960s the major parties in Australia, in the main, were seen to represent the most important political and economic interests in the nation. Mass representation via the highly competitive, adversarial political parties, supplemented by interest group activities, was seen to be a thorough-going system of representative democracy. The party which won a majority of the seats in the House of Representatives was seen as legitimate in democratic terms because it articulated, and reflected, the views of the majority.

However the rise of the 'new politics' (women's rights, student rights, gay rights, black rights, environmentalism, and ideas about participatory open government), challenged the role of the major parties as effective representatives of all the people. Many of the issues of the 'new politics' cut across economic class lines and the parties, and the traditional interest groups, were seen to be inadequate in their responses. They needed to be supplemented with additional forms of representation.

The major parties were criticised also for their authoritarian, closed oligarchic natures. Up until the late 1960s, strong party government had been seen as positive because a democratic system needed stable government in order to give policy coherence to the needs and wishes of the people. The rise of the 'new politics' articulated by an optimistic post-war generation who were influenced by American ideas, brought fresh perspectives. The major parties were seen as rigid and the adversalism between the parties was seen as excessive and actually subverting the process of good government-it was argued that what was in the public interest was too often secondary to the adversarial battle of the parties. The result was that party membership which was never high declined further, and voters moved away from their absolute loyalty to the major parties and elections became progressively more volatile.

Democratic Representation

The notion of democratic representation in the Australian Parliament changed. In 1973 the voting age was lowered to 18 and in 1974 the ACT and the Northern Territory were each given two seats in the Senate (the ACT had been given a seat in the House of Representatives in 1948). Another change of importance was to reduce the permissible variation from the quota of electors in each electorate from 20 per cent to ten per cent (plus or minus). In 1983 there were further changes of importance including the provision for party designations on ballot papers and the introduction of public funding. A non-partisan Australian Electoral Commission was also established to ensure the 'overt removal of all final decisions about the conduct of the electoral system-including the definition of electoral boundaries-from the party-political realm.'⁽³⁷⁾ Thus-despite the McKinlay and McKellar decisions of the High Court which rejected the argument that the Constitutional phrase 'directly chosen by the people' meant 'one person, one vote'; and despite the rejection at referendum in 1974 of proposals to require substantial equality in population (rather than electors) in all electoral divisions in Australia-the Australian system, through legislative reform, moved closer to substantial equality in electorates at Commonwealth level. ⁽³⁸⁾

Representing Diversity

Despite the changes the Parliament as a whole came under criticism with respect to its representativeness. During the 1910-1967 period, economic interests, as represented by the major parties, were believed to be paramount. The make-up of the individual members of Parliament was seen by most to be secondary to their party membership.

However the 'new politics' brought with it an awareness that the members of Parliament, despite party differences, were remarkably homogeneous. They were white, male, 'Anglo-Australians' and as such did not reflect the diversity of the people of Australia. The long-accepted argument that these Anglo-Australian, white males could represent the world views, values and interests of all Australians, was rejected. There has been a growing commitment that the representatives who make up the Parliament, in the leadership and in both Houses of Parliament should reasonably reflect the broader population in terms of ethnicity, race and gender.

Ethnicity and Race

Neither of the Australian Houses of Parliament can make the claim to be reasonably representative in terms of the ethnic and racial make-up of the parliamentarians. There is only one senator (new in 1999) of Asian background; only one Aboriginal senator (new in 1999). The vast majority of senators is Australian-born and with the exception of the new senator of Asian background, senators who are born overseas are also from Anglo-Celtic backgrounds. There are seven senators born in the UK (nine per cent); one from Eire, one from Zimbabwe and one from Papua New Guinea. All ten are 'Anglo' or 'Anglo-Australian' in ethnic terms. In addition there is one senator from New Zealand and one from Germany of German/English background.

Because the House of Representatives had no Aboriginal members there were suggestions in the 1990s that Australia should follow New Zealand's path and entrench guaranteed parliamentary seats for its Indigenous people. While such schemes may be admirable, entailing 'noble' malapportionment, (as it is described in the US) they still involve malappointment, breaching the 'one vote, one value view' of democracy. ⁽³⁹⁾ So far such a change has not taken place.

The House of Representatives has eight representatives born in non-English speaking countries (about five per cent). In addition there are perhaps six to ten representatives who, while Australian-born, come from 'ethnic' backgrounds. Very few members of the federal Parliament are fluent in a foreign language or speak a language other than English at home.

The Australian population at large has a very different profile. The present mix comprises about 74 per cent 'Anglo-Celtic', 'other European' 19 per cent, Asian 4.5 per cent and Aborigines at around 1.5 per cent. Twenty-three and a half per cent were born overseas. While the majority of these Australians spoke only English at home, 2.3 million (15 per cent) spoke a language other than English at home.

Given that the major changes in Australia's ethnic make-up are relatively recent (post-World War II) it is not surprising that the Parliament does not accurately reflect that ethnic diversity. What remains somewhat surprising is the slowness of the entry of some of the older ethnic communities into elected federal politics, especially among the Greek and Italian communities. However, because by the 1990s these communities were represented within the organisational wings of the major parties and in State Parliament, especially in NSW, it is highly likely that they will gain improved representation in the Federal Parliament. For the moment, however, neither House of the Federal Parliament can make strong claims to be a 'microcosm' of the broader society in terms of ethnicity.

Gender

In gender terms the representation is much better. While neither House comes near the ideal equity 50 per cent representation of women, there are 23 women Senators in the 1999 Senate, or 28.9 per cent and in the House of Representatives 33/148 Members are women: 22.3 per cent. Female representation within the major parties is very similar. For the House, there are 16 women members of the Labor party, (23.9 per cent); 15 women members of the Liberal party (23.4 per cent). The National party has the lowest female representation in the House, two out of sixteen members or 12.5 per cent. In the Senate the Australian Democrats have the largest female representation, with four women of their nine senators (44.4 per cent). Labor has nine women senators out of a total of 29 Labor senators (31 per cent) while the Liberal Party also has nine out of 31 senators (29 per cent). The National Party has four senators, none of whom is a woman. ⁽⁴⁰⁾

While there had been, continuously in Australia since the 1880s, a women's movement which attempted to make women politically aware and gain female representation in the Parliament, no woman was elected until 1942 and progress after that had been very slow. Up until 1980 there had only been 13 women senators and only four women members of the House. ⁽⁴¹⁾ Female representation in leadership positions improved dramatically only over the last few years, especially in the minor parties but also in some of the formal leadership positions with the Parliament. ⁽⁴²⁾

The ministry (at the time of writing in January 2000) contained 42 leadership or quasi-leadership positions in the elected Government. Of the 17 members of the Cabinet itself, there was only one female minister and she was a Senator; in the Ministry there were another 13 ministers of whom three were women-two from the House and one from the Senate and of the twelve parliamentary secretaries, three were women. Seven women out of 42 positions-17 per cent hardly makes for a ringing endorsement of the openness of the political elites on a gender basis. If the parliamentary secretaries are excluded and only ministers are looked at, there are four women in 30 positions. The Labor Opposition has identical female representation in leadership positions: four women among the 30 positions in the shadow ministries (13 per cent).

While representation in terms of gender is still not equitable it has profoundly improved over the last 25 years and appears to be improving at an increasing rate. According to United Nation figures however Australia's record is not exceptional.

Table I: Average Percentage of Women among Government Decision Makers by Region, 1994⁽⁴³⁾

	Ministerial	Subministerial	Total
Africa	5.4	6.8	6.3
Latin America and the Caribbean	7.5	11.4	10.4
Western Europe and other developed democracies	15.2	12.3	13.0
Asia and the Pacific	2.9	2.6	2.9
Eastern Europe	2.6	6.1	5.0
World	6.2	7.1	6.8

Source: United Nations, 1 February 1995 Commission on the Status of Women, UN Strategies for the Advancement of Women, Second review and appraisal. Advancement of Women

[gopher://gopher.undp.org:70/00/ecosocdocs/sow/1995/1995--3.en6] 6 June 1999.

Representing the Majority

With the general challenges to the representativeness of the parliamentarians came criticism of the outcome of Australia's electoral systems in party terms. The first criticism pointed out that the party that won a majority of seats in the House of Representatives at the election did not always win a majority of the vote. Campbell Sharman looked at the vote in the 1998 election. He found that the coalition parties won just under 40 per cent of the first preference vote for the House of Representatives, but gained over 54 per cent of the seats. While the Government secured a clear majority of the seats in the House, the Opposition obtained a majority of the two-party preferred vote. 1998 was the fifth occasion since 1954 in which this occurred (1954, 1961, 1969 and 1990 were the others). ⁽⁴⁴⁾

So long as Australia remains committed to the use of single-member constituencies for the election of that House, the distortion between seats won and percentage of the vote gained can occur, a distortion made greater by the requirement that electorates are drawn up within State boundaries. These distortions represent limitations on the claims of the Government formed from the winning party that it speaks on behalf of the 'will of the majority'.

The second basis for the criticism of the representativeness of election results arose from changes in voting patterns-the rise in voters giving their first preferences to minor parties. When minor party voting first arose it was seen as a 'protest vote' by which the voters could register mild dissatisfaction with the major parties, but could 'return' to the 'real' major party of their choice in their second preference. However the 1990s in particular saw substantial, regular increases in minor party voting, not just for the Senate, but for the House of Representatives. In 1998 for example, the minor party (and independent) first-preference vote nation-wide was around 20.4 per cent. ⁽⁴⁵⁾ In NSW it was 21.5 per cent, an increase of seven per cent on the 1996 minor party vote; which had, itself been an increase of 5 per cent on the 1993 figure. The 1993 figures of 9.6 per cent was itself quite substantial. A volatile electorate, willing to vote for independents and minor parties of both the Left and the Right has become the norm. Even 'safe' seats have seen swings of up to 16 per cent.

While Governments are still formed from one or other major party in the House of Representatives, these Governments, and indeed these parties are no longer automatically seen as representing the wishes of all the people. A substantial minority of Australians (perhaps up to 30 per cent) see the major parties as out-of-touch and unresponsive to their needs. By 1998, a populist minor party, the One Nation Party, attracted around 8.4 per cent of the vote nation-wide, the best 'first showing' of any party in Australia's federal history. Part of that party's rhetoric included an attack on the major parties as unrepresentative of the 'real Australia' and 'elitist'.

Minor Party Representation

The change to PR in the Senate in 1948 meant that electoral discontent with the major parties could be reflected institutionally because PR gave new parties and independents the chance to be elected-groups of a reasonable size (able to gain at least seven per cent of the vote in a State) stood a reasonable chance of gaining representatives in the Senate. The most important outcome, following the Labor split (referred to above) was the emergence of a new minor party, the Democratic Labour Party which gained 5.2 per cent of the House of Representatives vote in 1955, 9.5 per cent in 1958, and had a dramatic electoral effect by transferring electoral support 'from Labor to the entrenched non-Labor coalition'. ⁽⁴⁶⁾ Moreover the 1955 election saw the two major party groupings lose their total stranglehold on Senate seats, when Frank McManus, a member of the Anti-Communist Labor Party was elected as a Senator for Victoria with 17.77 per cent of the vote in that State. ⁽⁴⁷⁾ A second minor party of importance emerged in 1977. The Australian Democrats was created by Don Chipp, a former minister who resigned from the Liberal party to found the new party which came to occupy the 'middle group' of Australian politics. Since 1977 there has been a steady increase in the number of voters who 'ticket-split' giving their vote in the House of Representatives to one party and their vote in the Senate, to another. It is now the norm for neither major party to hold a majority in the Senate.

Table 11: Senate Party Composition 1955-1999

Year	Australian Labor Party	Liberals	Nationals	Democratic Labor Party	Australian Democrats	Greens	Greens (WA)	Independ-ents	One Nation
1955	28	24	6	2
1958	26	25	7	2
1961	28	24	6	1				1
1964	27	30	7	2				1
1967	27	21	7	4				1
1970	26	21	5	5				3
1974	29	23	6					2
1975	27	27	8					2
1977	27	29	5		2			1
1980	26	28	4		5			1
1983	30	24	4		5			1
1984	34	28	5		7			2
1987	32	27	7		7			3
1990	32	29	5		8		1	1
1993	30	30	6	7		2	1
1996	28	29	5	7	1	1	2
1999	29	31	4	9	1		1	1

Source: G. S. Reid and Martyn Forrest, Australia's Commonwealth Parliament 1901-1988, Ten Perspectives, op. cit., p. 124, updated to reflect election results since 1987.

Representative parliamentary democracy changed in Australia. It no longer simply meant mass party representation but also, through the Senate, the representation of significant minority opinion.

Accountability

A major component of responsible government involves the accountability of the Government to the people-through the Parliament. While, throughout the 20th century, election outcomes have been accepted as giving the Government of the day a mandate to govern, that mandate to govern has never meant a mandate to do as the Government pleases. It certainly does not mean a Government unfettered by the democratic requirements of accountability to the elected Parliament. Propriety, responsibility and accountability to the representative institutions of Parliament remain the essence of a responsible, representative parliamentary system.

One of the central constitutional conventions of parliamentary democracies is that the Parliament, as representative of the people, can:

• hold the Executive as a whole accountable, and
• hold individual ministers accountable.

Parliament and the Executive: Individual Ministerial Responsibility

As Dr Max Spry has said:

However ministerial responsibility developed in Australia-along with New Zealand, Canada and in the mother Parliament at Westminster-in ways that give only very limited power to the Parliament over the Executive.

Parliament's role in respect to ministerial responsibility is complex. ⁽⁴⁹⁾ It involves the convention of answerability by ministers to Parliament, which in turn involves a commitment by ministers to try and keep Parliament accurately informed and themselves accurately briefed. For most of the last century there was also the convention that ministers ought to resign if serious doubt arises over their political or personal competence. It was believed that ministers must be beyond reproach in their personal and financial matters, and resignation was also expected if there were a serious problem of maladministration within their department about which they knew, or should have known. These conventions were the essence of Westminster individual ministerial responsibility. In 1972 a future Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser stated, that:

While these conventions were publicly affirmed, the empirical record has always been somewhat at odds with them. In Canada, between 1867 and 1984 there was only one resignation due to an error in the minister's conduct of the portfolio and only three for misconduct in office. In Australia by 1988 the Prime Minister of the day, Bob Hawke, referred to the 'barren quest for ministerial resignations'. ⁽⁵¹⁾ In their review of ministerial responsibility between 1901 and 1988 Reid and Forrest found that 'in an overwhelming number of the cases where ministers have resigned under pressure the issue at stake has not been their competence or responsibility for instances of maladministration but rather doubts about their personal integrity'. ⁽⁵²⁾

Sutherland⁽⁵³⁾ makes the point that while ministers may survive a major attack on their political or personal competence and remain in office, frequently the Parliament has been effective indirectly in enforcing ministerial responsibility because the minister's political credibility is damaged and he or she ceases to wield power over ministerial colleagues. When the next Government is formed or the next Cabinet reshuffle occurs such ministers may not be back in Cabinet at all or may be demoted. Reshuffles or 'a quiet word' from the Prime Minister that a particular individual ought not seek reappointment into the ministry may well be the most effective form of ministerial responsibility and accountability-one imposed on non-performers, weak ministers or ministers who are seen as failing either politically or in a policy capacity.

Ultimately, however, Parliament's power in holding ministers accountable involves the ability to enforce resignations. If individual ministerial responsibility ever meant that ministers were expected to resign for major policy blunders or for serious errors of maladministration by a Government department, it is dead. The evidence is that ministerial resignation is not expected for departmental maladministration. Moreover in Australia (and elsewhere) the lack of resignations over departmental acts or policies was not the result of 'everything being well'. Nor were the issues minor. For example, three of them during the Fraser years (1975-1983)-the Asia Dairy Affair, the Meat Export scandal (both involving fraud and corruption in government authorities); and the bottom-of-the-harbour tax-avoidance scheme (involving fraud and corruption within a government department)-received enormous publicity and lively (to say the least) debate in Parliament. Two ministers knew about the extremely serious nature of the problems, and yet did not resign.

The study undertaken by Barbara Page found that in Australia, as in Britain and Canada, 'ministers do not resign for failings of their departments, even if they knew about them, and even if ... members of their own party think they should'. ⁽⁵⁴⁾

Most of the time (as in Canada and Britain) ministers do resign if discovered and pursued by Parliament (and if the media picks up that pursuit) when they are personally at fault (bribery, evasion of customs duty, etc).

Despite the general record of weak conventions of ministerial responsibility, the 1990s saw some parliamentary successes not only in holding ministers answerable to its committees but in forcing resignations. Whether it was dealing with the Keating Labor Government up until 1996 or the Howard Liberal/National Government from 1996, Parliament demonstrated that it could not be ignored and could, on occasion, hold the Executive accountable for its propriety, for lying to Parliament and in its spending of public monies.

For example, in 1992 and 1994 two ministers resigned over issues of personal and/or financial propriety and for lying to Parliament. In 1994 also Minister Ros Kelly resigned from the Keating Government as a result of the long-running 'Sports Rorts Affair' in the wake of two reports, one by the Auditor General and one by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts. Both found that her personal administration of the sports facilities program was seriously inadequate with the inference of political bias in the allocation of grants to community groups.

When the Liberal/National Coalition gained Government in 1996, the Prime Minister, John Howard, quickly introduced 'A Guide on Key Elements of Ministerial Responsibility' in order to clarify the expectations about ethical conduct. The Guide 'sets out in summary form the main principles, conventions and rules by which Government at the Commonwealth level is conducted'. ⁽⁵⁵⁾

The Guide was to become the centre of a series of clashes between the Government and the Opposition throughout 1996, 1997 and in the first half of 1998. While some ministers survived these clashes, six did not. Links between ministers and business interests were responsible for three resignations; two more resignations were demanded over the misuse of travel allowances involving issues of personal impropriety and of lying to Parliament.

In addition David Jull, the Minister for Administrative Services was forced to resign: he was the minister directly and specifically responsible for administering the travel allowances of members of Parliament.

The resignations of David Jull as Minister in the Howard Government and Ros Kelly as Minister in the Keating Government support the idea that a convention still exists that a minister resigns because of a serious error in the administration of his (her) portfolio. However resignation is not automatic: as Margo Kingston wrote in 1997, 'the usual political alternative-stick by them until they hurt your image, then tell them to go quietly'. ⁽⁵⁶⁾

Importantly in terms of the traditional Westminster conventions, nowhere in Howard's 'Guide on Key Elements of Ministerial Responsibility' do the words 'Individual Ministerial Responsibility' appear. Collective Responsibility to Cabinet is discussed specifically. However when it comes to individual ministers there are only (in addition to the issues of directorships, and financial propriety) the following statements:

• Ministers are 'ultimately accountable in Parliament for the overall operation of his/her portfolio', and 'Ministers do ... have overall responsibility for the administration of their portfolios and for carriage in the Parliament of their accountability obligations arising from that responsibility. They