Parliamentary Issues

Accountability of ministers and ministerial staff

In 1996, then newly elected Prime Minister John Howard stressed the importance of ministerial accountability. He introduced a ministerial code of conduct that included a set of standards against which ministers could be tested. During the early years of his government, several ministers did not meet these standards and seven resigned from their ministerial positions. In the later years of the Howard Government, academics, the media and the Opposition argued that, ‘while Australian standards have been eroded, other countries have moved to enhance democratic accountability’. Howard was urged to restore the concept of ministerial responsibility to Australia’s Westminster system of government. In 1998, he chose to issue a revised code of ministerial conduct, under which fewer ministers were forced to resign. Recent criticisms of ministerial standards have included calls for a more rigorous ministerial code of conduct.

The current ministerial code has been criticised for the lack of accountability it provides for breaches of the code. During the period of Howard Government, the Prime Minister, as the author of the code, decided how breaches were to be handled. The latest version of the United Kingdom’s Ministerial Code, by contrast, includes the appointment of the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests who is able, at the British Prime Minister’s request, to investigate alleged breaches of the code.

Accountability has also been an issue in relation to the post-separation employment of Howard Government ministers who moved to positions of employment within their areas of most recent responsibility. Howard resisted calls to introduce a code covering the post-separation employment of ministers. Several models exist for these codes, ranging from the tiered system of restrictions used in the United States and Canada to the UK restriction of two years, which is imposed only if an independent Advisory Committee recommends such action. The Australian Labor Party’s policy is ‘that former ministers will be required to adhere to a twelve–month waiting period before they can take up employment in their most recent areas of responsibility’.

The growth in the number of ministerial staff and their lack of accountability beyond their ministers are issues that have received much attention over the last decade. The Howard Government followed the practice of previous Labor governments in refusing to allow ministerial staff to appear before parliamentary committees. This resulted in parliamentary committees raising the need for a code of conduct covering ministerial staff. Under the ALP’s stated policy, a Rudd Government would require ministerial staff who had ‘exercised any executive function in the management of a policy’ to appear before parliamentary committees.

The number of ministerial staff has increased from 294 in May 1996 to 445 in 2006. The ALP policy is to reduce the number of ministerial staff, including those in the Government Members’ Secretariat, by 30 per cent. This would result in a return to 1996 staffing levels.

Parliamentary accountability

Over the last decade, concerns have been raised about a perceived decline in the accountability of members of parliament. The experience in other parliaments shows that accountability is improved by the creation of the position of an independent officer, such as a parliamentary standards commissioner, to advise ministers and MPs on ethical standards. The parliaments of Britain and Canada have both created the position of an independent ethics adviser.

Most Australian state parliaments have introduced codes of conduct covering members of parliament. None of the major parties has indicated support for the introduction of such a code at the federal level.

During the 41^st Parliament, the Howard Government gained control of the Senate. The ALP and minor parties criticised several changes that the Coalition then made to the operation of the Senate which, they argued, curtailed their ability to hold the Howard Government accountable. These changes included:

• altered arrangements for chairing committees
• control by the Government of issues referred to committees, and
• a reduction in the number of questions allocated to the Opposition in question time.

The Howard Government was also criticised for a decline in the independence of the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

The incoming Rudd Government has indicated that it would support measures to ‘lift the standard of Parliament’. These measures include ‘enhancing the independence of the Speaker of the House of Representatives’ by ensuring impartiality, treating parliamentary question time as an opportunity for calling the government to account and restoring Senate committees as a ‘robust review mechanism’.

Library documents
Deirdre McKeown, ‘A survey of codes of conduct in Australian and selected overseas parliaments’, Background Note, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2006.

Documentation
Australian Labor Party, ‘Reforming government’ in National Platform and Constitution 2007.
Australian Labor Party, Cleaning up government, 2007.
Australasian Study of Parliament Group, Be Honest, Minister!: restoring honest government in Australia, 2007.
Anne Tiernan, Power without responsibility: ministerial staffers in Australian governments from Whitlam to Howard, Sydney, UNSW Press, 2007.