Search results

Abstract: Following the election of the Whitlam government in December 1972 changes in the composition, work and style of ministers' offices were substantial. Evaluations of the emerging pattern conflicted, often quite sharply. This paper surveys the pattern of staffing introduced by Labor and examines in particular the roles of ministerial officers as political and policy advisers. The paper also discusses recent experiences with ministerial staff in the United Kingdom and Canada, and makes brief reference to the use of ministerial staff by the Fraser government. Assessing the effectiveness of ministerial advisers is not easy. No straight forward measures of effectiveness exist. It is argued that, despite the ambitions of some ministerial staff during the Whitlam government, the role of ministerial advisers was essentially limited and confined. Ministers found them useful but few found them overwhelmingly so. While the Fraser government has reduced the number and visibility of ministerial staff it has retained the institutional underpinning of Labor's system. In the search for ways of assisting political parties to govern and to respond to changing situations, it is likely that ministerial staff with ability to advise on policy will receive further attention in the future.

Abstract: The ministerial staff of the present Liberal‐National Country Party government are compared with those of the Labor government between 1972 and 1975. The most striking contrasts between the two groups is that the Coalition staffers are fewer in number (with fewer "political" types) and less "visible" than their Labor counterparts. They also intrude less into the workings of departments and report better relationships with public servants. There is thus a weakening of the representative and party political elements in the Federal government which were built up under the Labor party, and an opening of the way for a possible reassertion of the bureaucratic element. Although Coalition staffers differ from Labor staffers in other respects (for instance more come from private industry and private practice, fewer from journalism), on a number of criteria they have much in common. They are mostly male, in their twenties or thirties, mostly graduates, disproportionately from non‐government schools, with about half from inside and half from outside the public service.