Administering Australian
Parliaments
Comments on the Foley-Russell
Report
R. L. Cope Legislative Studies, Spring - 1992
The appearance of the Strategic
Management
Review of the
Parliament of
Victoria (the Foley-Russell
Report
1991) should promote a deeper
consideration
of a number of issues, some very
confused, about how the Australian
parliaments
organise and manage their own staffs
and services.! Too little public and
scholarly
attention has been paid in Australia
to the
changes taking place in the
bureaucratic management
of the parliaments, especially in the
States.2 The process has admittedly
been
uneven, and there does not seem to be
any
generally acceptable 'doctrine'. The
reasons
for these changes are in part a
response to
members' perception that the
organisation is
not supporting their needs adequately,
but
more generally the changes are part of
the
process of restructuring sweeping the
public
sector. The belief that what works in
the
private sector should work in the
public
sector, a belief dressed in appropriate
'philosophical'
terminology, has swept over the
various public services, but
parliaments, until
recently, have been largely shielded
from the
full impact of these innovations. It
remains a
moot question to what extent the norms
determining changes i~ the
public sector at
large are applicable to legislatures.
Changes in public sector management
arise from a new philosophy of public
administration
stressing effectiveness, efficiency
and
accountability.
New tools to achieve
these
desirable goals are proposed.
Traditional
structures and controls have been
replaced
(public service boards abolished, senior executive
services with performance norms and
contracts introduced), financial and
budgetary
procedures have been modernised,
accountability measures and
performance
goals have been put in place
(corporate and
strategic plans are required, annual
reporting
norms have been strengthened), and
emphasis is placed on improving staff
skills
and career opportunities.3
Increasingly these
and other public sector requirements
are
being extended to parliaments where
some of
them are long overdue.
The need to upgrade the organisational
framework and the performance of the
parliamentary
bureaucracies seems clear enough if
the public perception of Australian
legislatures
is to improve. The Report of the
Queensland Fitzgerald Inquiry (1989)
is
important, amongst other things, for
its
remarks on the effectiveness of the
parliamentary
institution.
Recommendations having a
bearing on its internal management and
organisation are made which have a
relevance
for other States as well. Of course,
there
is an even more important need for the
members and governments to play a role
which does not undermine the
institution
itself. In this context, the
Queensland example
n~eds
no
elaboration. In New South Wales
Premier Wran never hid his disdain for
parliament:
he used it as suited his policies, but
he never valued or respected it as
such.
Examples such as this can have a very
pervasive
force especially when coupled with
media reaction.
Why is change needed
The need for
mOTe effective legislative
bureaucracies
and better provision of support
services are clearly recognised by
parliamentarians
who are all
too well aware of their
increasing
workloads and of an electorate
becoming
more knowledgeable, questioning
and politically unreliable. Without
excellent
information
and other support services
members cannot
hope to keep even modestly
abreast of
the issues (often socially divisive)
now so
characteristic of political
life.
The rise
of
single-issue movements has also added to
the stress of political and
parliamentary life.
The game is
harder and members need access
to a range
of specialised support services, not
just for
parliamentary debate and electorat~
needs, but
for policy discussion and formulation
within their
own parties as well.
Members,
particularly if in Opposition, need
the"
parliamentary organisation to help them
cope. The
parliamentary bureaucracies, especially
in the
Australian States, have not been
notable for
planning to meet changing institutional
needs.
Indeed, some members would
claim that
there is a lack of response to
existing
needs, much less any capacity or will
to
anticipate or provide for future needs.
The Foley-Russell Report was debated
in
the
Victorian Parliament and received a
modest
amount of press notice. The parliamentary
discussion
was not very penetrating
and almost
entirely ignored the suggestions
for internal
bureaucratic restructuring.
An article by Sir Rupert Hamer (entitled
'Parliament
in Crisis' (Herald-Sun, March 22,
1991)
criticised
the report for overlooking two principal
reasons for
the decline of Parliament:
rigidity of the party system and the
development
of the
electronic media. Sir Rupert's"
remarks
focus on surface issues. Other
comment
concentrated obsessively on the
question of
parliamentary control of its own
budget. By far the most sensible
comment on
this emotive
question was made by the Hon.
G. P. Connard M.L.e.: '
There is no
doubt that
a measure of
discipline has to be exercised by
the
Treasurer in making the appropriation for
Parliament,
but those things can be worked
out' (Parliamentary Debates
(Legislative
Council), 10 April 1991,
607).
The
Victorian Legislative Council
approved a
motion tor the establishment of a
joint Select
Committee to inquire into and
report upon
all the issues and recommendations
contained in the Foley-Russell Report.
If
that joint
select committee becomes operative,
its minutes
of evidence should be a valuable
source of
information on many questions of
wide
relevance to all Australian parliaments.
Changing Parliamentary Bureaucracies
When changes
are proposed to the internal
structure
and management of a legislature, it
is always worth giving a thought to
the
motives of
those making the proposal as well
as to the
motives of those who have to implement
the changes.
Of course it is not always
easy to
determine motives, but shrewd surmises
can be made.
Neville Wran was fond of the saying:
'Bet
on
self-interest, it is always a sure winner'.
This piece
of homely _wisdom is worth
bearing in
mind when contemplating the
question of
the way the legislature's organisation
and services
might be changed. The
number of
players whose self-interest is
involved
should be considered carefully.
Good reports may fail if they ignore
homely
wisdom: It is
not yet clear what fate awaits
the Foley-Russell Report.
It is
noteworthy that most reports on possible
changes to
parliamentary administration
and internal
management have been conducted
by outsiders
so as to avoid suggestions
of bias and
self-interest. One possible
drawback of
this is that parliaments are
organisations
quite unlike any other: they do
not fit into
organisational schemes as generally
understood.
Their 'corporate culture' is
not easily
accessible to outsiders. This may at
first seem
an odd claim in view of the extensive
literature
on parliaments,· but that literature
is
predominantly concerned with the
political and procedural aspects, not
with the
structural
administrative ones.
However that
may be, the
fact that a number of inquiries
into
parliamentary administrative matters
conducted by
outside 'experts' have failed to
be
implemented in the way recommended
may be explained, at least in part, by
their
inability (perhaps never even
realised) to
penetrate
beyond the 'public' face to the underlying
reality. This is a complex matter not
easily analysable, being part
anecdotal and
variable according to time, place and
personalities
involved.
The Foley-Russell Report has as its
authors Dr K. J. Foley, who was for a
period a
member of parliaJ11ent (and hence, one
assumes, something of an insider), and
Prof~
ssor
E. W.
Russell, Executive Director,
Public Sector Management Institute,
Monash
University. The Report is very
readable and is
designed and organised with a flair
not characteristic
of official reports. It has a lively,
personal
tone expressing concern and
occasionally indignation at
deficiencies of the
Victorian Parliament. It is in the
best sense a
'passionate' document, which enhances
its
readability. Because it raises key
issues and
expresses strongly held opinions, it
is also a
work which deserves to become a widely
used text tor students of political
science. It is
ideal for this purpose, being readable
and
inviting response (positive and
negative).
A Report of the Victorian AuditorGeneral's
Office entitled Assessment of the
Administration of the
Departments which Support
the Activities of
Parliament (]987)
forms an
interesting companion-piece to the
FoleyRussell
Report.4 The Auditor-General's
Report is scathing about managerial
deficiencies
and the lack of proper staffing
policies,
especially as regards performance.
Much of
what is said about the Victorian
Parliament
might, we suggest, be said with equal
validity
about other Australian parliaments.
But one
hastens to add that some of the
AuditorGeneral's
criteria are open to strong question.
He is applying an outsider's norms to
a situation
which requires the knowledge, experience
and, especially, the psychological
insight
of an insider.
Anyone who has ever
worked
in a parliament would smile to read
the
Report's paragraph 4.3.7 dealing with
Parliamentary
Committees: '(2) Lines of authority
and communication between Directors of
Research, Committee Secretaries and
Parliamentary
administration were not fully
understood
by all officers'. There is, of course,
a
whole history here ~aiting for
the pen of a Sir
Lewis Namier!
Several other passages from the
AuditorGeneral's
Report should be quoted because
they are relevant to the consideration
of the
Foley-Russell Report.
4.1.1 (4) Officers appointed to senior
positions
have usually developed skills only
in limited area of activity, Le.,
table
officer, parliamentary reporter, etc.
As a
consequence, they may not have had the
opportunity for exposure to a
wide-range
of mid-level managerial activities
which
would develop the skills required of a
senior executive.
These remarks may be fair enough, but
unless the context and realities of
the organisation
are clearly understood, the points
made above may be purely rhetorical.
How
many people, for example, are being
spoken
of? What is meant by 'mid-level
managerial
activities' within the structure of
the Parliament
of Victoria? What certainty is there
that
officers will in fact ever progress to
such elevated
levels?
4.1.6 ... Audit (i.e. the surveyor)
noted
that with the exception of the
Parliamentary
Library and limited statistical data
in
other departments, there was little
evidence
of the monitoring of activities
through the use of management
information
systems, performance evaluations,
and the use of performance indicators.
In
audit view, use of such measures would
have assisted in overcoming at an
early
stage many of the problems referred to
later in thi? report.
These interesting remarks seem
sensible,
but once again their application in
the real
context may be utterly fanciful.
Without
entering into fuller analysis, it seems
clear
that the Auditor-General's Office has
pinpointed
obvious deficiencies when measured
against norms (not stated) of
efficiency and
effectiveness, but the solutions
proposed,
applicable in government departments
with a
large workforce and with quite
different
structure and corporate culture, may
achieve
very little.
Will the Clerk of the Legislative
Council conduct the performance
evaluation
of the Assembly's Clerk? Or will
outsiders be
called in to assist? The problem is
genuine;
the need tor action may be pressing: but what
is the solution that will work in the
real world
of the Parliament of Victoria?
The Foley-Russell Report takes as its
point of departure the Report of the
AuditorGeneral's
Office as well as a draft Corporate
Plan prepared in 1990 by the five
Parliamentary
Departments. The authors state (p. 19)
that they go beyond the previous
documents
by 'fcrussing forwards and outwards on
steps
that needed to be taken to ensure the
Parliament
is well placed to respond to the
demands which will be placed on it in
the
coming decade' [4]. On p. 7 they
state: '...
with existing attitudes, structure,
resources
and funding processes it appears that
the Victorian
Parliament cannot (their
emphasis)
fully meet its obligations within the
Victorian
constitutional framework'. They fully discuss
the Victorian constitutional framework
and
Parliament's place within it. On this
basis
they offer their recommendations for
remedial
action. They wax particularly eloquent
about Parliament's subservience to the
Executive.
On several occasions they refer to the
heinous fact that 'Parliament must go
cap in
hand to Treasury public servants to
obtain
allocation' (p. 11). This amusing
notion is, of
course, a classic instance of setting
up straw
men.
'Treasury public servants', i.e.
Treasury
officers, do not approve the
allocations: the
Treasurer, Le. an elected
parliamentarian,
does. Not all Treasurers are supine
creatures
of their public servants! Executive
government
entails control of the public purse,
subject to parliamentary processes
being met.
But the desire of all Australian parliaments
to
have greater control over their own
budgets
certainly stands high on their
agendas. The
authors are convinced that their view
of parliamentary
democracy (separation of powers,
constitutional checks and balances) is
unshakeable: 'fit} underlies our
report and is
the foundation for many
recommendations,
(p. 13).
Criticising the Queensland Government
for its 'lack of appreciation' of the
doctrine of
separation of powers between the
branches of
government, the authors 'add the same
criticism
can regrettably be levelled at
successive
Victorian Governments regardless of
political
hue' (p. 13). Is it too far wide of
the mark to
say that every Australian government is the
same: differences are matters of
degree? It
may well be more relevant to ask whether
the
'doctrine' is not in reality a myth
which has
little contemporary relevance in the
way the
authors state.
Possibly it was
effectively operative
in colonial times, but even that needs
careful analysis. The predominance of
the
Executive has several reasons: the
foremost
being that political concerns always
take
precedence over parliamentary
concerns. This
is in fact recognised in a very good
passage of
the Report on p. 6 where the authors
castigate
the major political parties for
lacking a platform
statement or policy on Parliament per
se.
Why do they need one if Parliament is
basically
an instrument and not some
hypostatised
idea? This approach to the nature of
Parliament leads the authors to make
the following
bold claim: 'the Presiding Officers
(in
the case of the legislative branch)
and the
Chief Justice (in the case of the
judicial
branch) - each are (i.e. is)
conceptually of
equal status to the Premier'. It is
not fruitful
to become beguiled by such bizarre
notions.
Another reason tor the pre-eminence of
the Executive stems from internal
management
deficiencies of the Parliament which
has
lacked the necessary skills and
resources to
match the administrative competence of
the
Executive.
Is Parliament an Organisation?
It may seem strange to pose the
question
whether parliament is an organisation.
Some
observers would maintain that it is
actually a
'congeries of organisations'. The
difficulty is
that parliament is a chameleon, and
one is
reminded of the problems besetting the
nature of light: is it a wave or a
particle? In
other words, parliament is what the
viewer
sees it to be and one focus may need
to be
qualified in the light of other points
of focus.
It is not idle to consider these
matters more
deeply because managerial and
organisational
concepts flow from what is understood
about the nature of the 'organisation'
to be
managed.
The complex nature of parliaments as
continuous administrative
organisations are a
subject scarcely touched by
researchers and a
study which certainly cannot succeed
without
an insider's knowledge. Perhaps a helpful his
torical analogy to the nature of a
parliament is
found in the small princedoms of
eighteenthcentury
Germany. Many of the same elements
are present: autocratic rule tempered by
hidebound
bureaucratic and judicial procedures
and attitudes, court intrigues and the
kaleidoscope
of personal relations and favourites,
as
well as more positive features which
may
even embrace the public good. That
personal
and psychological factors are heavily
weighted in such an environment states
the
obvious. It can be a strength as well
as a
weakness.
Certainly the hothouse and
sometimes
hermetically sealed atmosphere of a
parliament, especially bicameral ones,
makes
psychological factors very powerful.
They are
not admittedly unknown in other
organisations
as well, but they assume a peculiar
intensity and pervasiveness within
legislatures.
Indeed the psychology of power is
perhaps the greatest force active in
any parliament.
The authors understandably do not
mention it, although they would be
aware of
its existence.
The authors accept that parliament as
an
organisation should have a mission
statement
and a list of objectives. These are
dealt with
on pp. 24-27. They plead for the
political
parties to prepare policy statements
on parliament
and advocate a joint sitting of both
Houses 'in a bipartisan climate' to
adopt an
appropriate mission statement. They
offer a
model statement which is in line with
their
assumptions about how the Parliament
'is
intended to function' in our system of
parliamentary
government (p. 25). But this is to beg
the question: how it is 'intended' to
function
does not necessarily mean that is how it
actually
functions, or can indeed ever hope to
function.
The objectives for the Parliament (p.
27)
are well worth reading, and though
offering
some counsels of perfection, could
provide
useful pointers for other parliaments
as well.
But the applicability of missions and
objectives
must be measured against the nature of
the organisation and, as pointed out
above,
parliament as an organisation presents
peculiar
difficulties which standard
organisation
theory is not equipped to handle very readily.
Strategies for Implementing
Change
To implement the objectives proposed
the
authors recommend a range of strategic
measures.
First of all, they advocate a 'process
by
which Members of Parliament and the
staff of
Parliament discuss and develop a
consensus
on these objectives' (p. 28).5 It is,
however, not
clear what this proposal really means:
who
are the staff? How is the discussion
to
proceed? Does consensus really mean
that
Members might be expected to concede
points to the staff? The sentiment is laudable,
but its nature is essentially vague.
Do the lion
and the lamb actually ever sit down
together?
Their principal suggestion, based on
the
notion that the Executive has
submerged the
Legislature, raises the issue of
parliament
prosecuting an energetic role as
guardian of
public accountability and thus
demonstrating
its 'relevance' (p. 29). They state:
We suggest that 1991 be devoted [to an
intensive process to raise public
understanding
of the Constitution and of
Parliament's
role] ... and that a centrepiece
of it be the creation of a
parliamentary
education function.
The task the
strategy
requires can be helped by that
function,
but the essential task belongs to the
Parliamentarians,
and their commitment to it
will determine its success or failure.
Few will deny that parliament needs to
carry out an education function,
starting vvith
its own staff and the members
themselves.
The authors make excellent points on
this
issue. Next it might be suggested that
media
representatives, sometimes lamentably
ignorant
about basics, be targeted. Parliament
can
scarcely be successful in its efforts if
television
broadcasters watched by multitudes
convey
distorted or even wrong impressions,
not so
much by intent as from pure
old-fashioned
ignorance. Obviously we need a
fleshing-out
of this idea. It is well worth more
analysis.
The authors do not propose any costs
or give
other than a general admonition.
Accountability
The theme of accountability, that is,
of the
Executive to the Legislature, is a
major
element in the Report and recent develop
ments in Queensland, to mention but
one
example, lend weight to the concern
for real
parliamentary powers of
accountability.
There is also reference to the need
for parliamentary
departments to issue annual reports
and provide some accountability of
their
activities. Nowhere could I see
mention of
accountability of members for their
activities
and expenditures. This hereticai
suggestion
would sink any report, but it should
not be
pretended that members are any different
from other mortals when it comes to
money.
Recent revelations that some NSW
members and ministers amass enormous
unpaid parliamentary refreshment room
accounts have surfaced. Sensitivities
become
acute when questions of this kind
arise.
Queensland had a few years ago a
flurry
about the fairly common abuse of the
air warrants
system.6 A former leading federal
member spent a fabulous sum on postage
for
electioneering purposes: is he alone
in this
practice? It usually needs a
'whistleblower' to
let us know. While most members would
be
scrupulous, the damage done to the
reputation
of the parliamentary institution and
to
members generally by the unscrupulous
few
because of the lack of genuine
accountability
can be great.
It is this iack of self-accountabiiity
on the
part of members which makes one
alarmed at
the novel suggestion of Foiey-Russell
that the
Ombudsman (as well as the
Auditor-General
and the Parliament Counsel) be placed
within
the organisational structure of
parliament.
One of the few real successes in
Australian
public administration in recent times
has been
the office of Ombudsman. The authors
need
to spell out what they mean much more
clearly: the office of Parliamentary
Commissioner
(Ombudsman) in the United Kingdom
had considerable difficulties at one
time; the
West German counterpart, also attached
to
the Legislature, has features which
would not
be easily applicable to the State of
Victoria. To
accept the authors, naked
recommendation
might be a kiss of death to reai
independence
and fearless investigation. The same
recommendation
about the office of AuditorGeneral
is also not without problems.
It is curious that the
auditors-general as a
class have had so little impact in recent years
on drawing attention to the disastrous
adventurism
practised with public funds by a
number of governments. They might as
well
not have existed.
There has always
been a
certain 'aura' around the office of
auditorgeneral,
but that aura may be due for some
objective analysis. Auditors-general
seem
mildly effective in criticising
deficiencies in
handling funds but their record in
raising
questions about whether the funds
should
have been sp"~nt in the first place i? less
impressive. This is certainly the case
regarding internal parliamentary
expenditures.
Of course there are quicksands here
and one must tread very warily. Would
the
office, whose value is potentially so
great, be
actually enhanced by becoming an arm
of the
parliament? One may be very sceptical
indeed, especially in view of the
symptomatic
situation revealed in Queensland. A
fearlessly
impartial, independent and
self-motivated
office of auditor-general is a most
desirable
objective, but to align it with
parliaments
with declining reputations and status
does
not seem very sensible.
The
pre-conditions
are wanting, nor will they be created
until the
authors make more radical
recommendations
based on a real knOWledge of how power
is
wielded and influence exercised. The
remarks
in 7.2.2.2 about the vaiue 6f the
AuditorGeneral
and the Audit Office as a constituent
part of the Legislature are nebulous
and hard
to take seriously.
With regard to the same suggestion for
the Parliamentary Counsel's office,
one must
question the rationale of the view
that 'Parliamentary
Counsel also exists primarily to
facilitate
the working of Parliament' (p. 31). Is
that
reaHy true? It might be thought that
the converse
applies equaHy weil. The argumentation
in 7.2.2.3 on this question is based
on
presuppositions which need an explicit
elaboration.
The recommendation seems doctrinaire
rather than reasonable or even
desirable.
Paragraph 7.2.3 proposes a budgetary
reform allowing Parliament to take
control of
its own appropriations. The authors
suggest
no checks and balances and in view of
their
concern for accountability of the
Executive, it
is paradoxicai that they do not appiy
the same
thinking to what is simply another way of
spending public money. The idea in
itself has
merit, but it too needs to be more
fully explicated.
They will not be unaware of the adage
'quis custodiet ipsos custodes?'
It might well be suggested that
parliamentary
estimates committees provide a real
avenue for ensuring that the
legislature as
well as the executive practise
accountability.
In theory that would be so, but no-one
believes that such committees actually
desire
to examine the way members' operate,
either
as individuals or as committee
members.
There are many delicate matters about
members behaviour and activities,
known to
insiders but kept private to save
embarrassment.
Occasionally obscure'obiter dicta' in
parliamentary debate convey warning
signals
understood by insiders but utterly
baffling to
anyone else. The realities of
political behaviour
means that it is not the done thing
for
questioning to touch certain human
frailties.
Few would not agree with that policy,
provided
the rules are clearly understood. One
would, however, draw the line at
criminal
and corrupt behaviour.
The Structure of the Parliamentary Organisation
The section of the Report bearing the
above
heading deals with a topiC which has
latterly
become fashionable within Australian
parliaments.
Some parliaments have created
parliamentary
commissions, and others have
introduced their own form of
administrative
structure for the Parliament. The
FoleyRussell
Report advocates a single Permanent
Head (Director-General) and a
centralised
corporate services division for the
Parliament
of Victoria. The Director-General will
report
to the Presiding Officers and is to
'provide
leadership and managerial
cohesiol" to Parliament's
support services' (p. 34). The eight
managerial elements of the structure
(which
includes the Ombudsman, etc.) are set
out on
p. 34. The Clerks' positions are
downgraded
in scope and their control, in theory
at least,
becomes more circumscribed. The
authors
skate over the thinnest of ice in this
section.
Perhaps they have advisedly left their
remarks in such a scanty form. This is
a pity
because a full discussion of the role of the
Clerks is pivotal to any consideration
of structure
and management.
Also lacking is any analysis of the
role of
the Presiding Officers, a topic of
fascinating
dimensions and one bristling with
difficulties.
The earlier analogy of the
eighteenth-century
princedoms is especially relevant in
this
context. A study of the 'style' of
recent Presiding
Officers across Australia would soon
indicate both the strengths and
weaknesses
besetting attempts to improve
parliamentary
administration without fundamental
review
of the role of the political heads. As
long as
political concerns motivate
parliamentarians
and Presiding Officers, there cannot
fail to be
difficulties in avoiding a clash of
parliamentary
and political priorities. Mr Speaker
Rozzoli of NSW, a Speaker who has in a
short
time made a strong positive impact on
administrative
effectiveness in his Parliament, has
recently published a Paper ventilating
the
need tor the speakership to be secure
against
the vagaries of political changes and
electioneering?
This dilemma of the pre-eminence of
politics over the quite different
needs of
stable, reliable and often unexciting
administration,
bedevils much of the discussion on
parliamentary effectiveness and
efficiency. It
can become perilously close to an
attempt to
square the circle, especially if the
discussion is
conducted with myths in place of
realities.8
Personnel Management
The authors recommend a Parliamentary
Service Committee to determine
appointments,
promote staff mobility and be the
guardians of the merit principle and
fair
employment practices. No details of
its composition
or tenure are given and the proposal
is given as a germ of an idea to be
further
developed (7.3.10, p. 36). If the germ
becomes
viable, it might also include
performance
assessment if that notion is to be
seriously
considered. The idea that mobility
between
the Parliament and the public sector
should
be fostered is interesting, but open
to some
doubts. Some would argue that public
servants
coming to work in the legislature
would
gain new respect and understanding for
the
institution; others would claim that
such
experience might shatter illusions and
cause
cynicism. The parliaments nowadays com
plain of too great a staff turnover.
Parliaments
are wonderful stepping stones for
careerists!
To be really effective parliaments
need staff
with a depth of experience and with a
good
corporate memory: turnover does not
assist
this, and mobility in and out may
bring too
much"disruption. The authors do
mention the
relative unattractiveness of parliamentary
salaries and conditions of work: more
might
well be done to give career
satisfaction to parliamentary
offlcers by improving these, but in
return enhanced qualifications and
demonstrated
excellence in performance and
commitment
should be required.
The authors make a range of critical
remarks regarding personnel management
in
the Victorian Parliament where some
nineteenth-
century practices, and, especially,
attitudes
seem strongly entrenched. In 9.3 they
advocate selection and promotion
strictly on
merit and for staff to 'be more
representative
of the wider community in terms of
gender,
education, management expertise (po
45).
Unfortunately these sentiments mean
little
unless one has a good idea of the
range of
positions involved, the skills needed,
the
available career prospects, and the
like. There
are a great many variables needing
consideration,
but that is of course no argument
against
change and improvement. The authors do
not
comment on the need to get rid of
unsuitable
staff although their remarks imply
that such
staff exist. It would be disastrous
for morale if
new staff are recruited along the
rigorous
lines suggested while older senior
staff of
little capacity continue to occupy
comfortable
niches.
A series of sensible suggestions about
personnel practices is made in chapter
9, but
the suspicion remains that they can
avail little
unless a number of other problems are
first
cleared up. The authors stress that
their key
recommendation for the establishment
of a
Parliamentary Service Committee must
occur
as the sine qua non, but for reasons
already
given above, it is doubtful if that
can of itself
really address a problem with such
tangled
roots.
The Report's Conclusions
As the study has progressed it has
become clear that the system of govern·
ment in Victoria had not for some time
operated as it should. And with
existing
attitudes, structures, resources 'and
funding procedures the Victorian
Parlia·
ment cannot fully discharge the
role
required of it in the Victorian
constitutional
framework. (p. 58)
This quotation neatly packages some of
the main issues. The phrase: 'as it
should'
indicates a normative approach which
the
next sentence makes clearer. But if one
questions
the idealistic view the authors
entertain
about the role parliament 'should'
play, one's
response to the points they make may
well be
quite different from what they would
welcome. They state on p. 59 that the
focus of
their study has been 'toward more
effective
government in the widest sense'. This
is an
approach which no-one could quarrel
with
since it is general enough to mean
almost anything.
That as a nation we need to do better
does not seem open to question, but
who has
the answers?
The Report's final section 'Implementation'
(pp. 62-63) discusses how to proceed:
, ... extensive discussion and debate
should
accompany any program to implement our
recommendations, because an improved
understanding among the political
community
of the role of Parliament is in our
view an
essential precondition of the changes
needed,
(p. 62). Perhaps the authors mean that
the
debate should precede the program.
This
would be a more democratic approach,
which
seems to be what they favour. The
phrase
'political community', however, raises
problems:
isn't that too restrictive a term and
in
contradiction to the authors' belief
that parliamentary
staff should be involved? The
challenge
will be to elicit an involvement which
does not simply reflect existing power
structures
and entrenched interests.
Parliamentary
officers do not spend their lives
working with
politicians without learning a trick
or two.
Conclusion
The Foley-Russell Report deserves wide
notice and it would be a surprising
lapse if
Legislative Studies did not seek a number
of
responses to it. It requires a variety
of viewpoints
to bring out its rich content. The
present review, focusing on the internal
administrative apparatus of the
Victorian
Legislature, may be seen as a rather
sceptical
one based on many years of
parliamentary
service elsewhere. But it is not
unsympathetic
since I share the authors' concern
that 'Causa
tua agitur'. I agree with their
general diagnosis
of the performance of the
parliamentary
bureaucracy, of the deficient staff
management
policies, and of the needs for better
staff
training and education procedures.
One major and surprising omission from
the Report is any consideration of
cost-benefit. The recommendations will
lead
to heavier costs for parliamentary
government
in Victoria: will those costs really
be justified?
Bearing in mind N. Wran's homely
wisdom quoted earlier, one would need
to
find someone uninvolved to give an
answer.
As far as I can ascertain, no-one has
done any
detailed analysis of the real costs of
parliamentary
government in Australia, surely one
of the major growth areas in the
public sector,
if Canberra is any indication. The
true picture
in Canberra is extremely complex and
should
prove a rewarding, if thorny, subject
for
study. Victoria is likely to be
simpler, but one
would welcome some sound data on the
question, especially the benefits!
It is, to my mind, very doubtful if
political
parties will ever want to have
specific
policies for parliament. They don't
really
need them and they would, in any case
not be
bound by them. Why should they?
Parliament
is an instrument to be used, and
political
considerations of the day decide the
manner of use. It is, of course, in
the interest
of those involved to have a fully
efficient
instrument, but in some ways one can
defend
the thesis that we should look to the
parliamentary
bureaucracy, that is, career officers
expecting, to spend their working life
in parliament,
to protect the interests of the
organisation
(if that is the right term) from the
excesses of the temporary kings, the
elected
members. Political concerns are often'
for
short-term advantage, whereas
institutions
such as parliaments which one expects
will
exist for many decades need to give
thought
to longer-term concerns.
One may strongly agree with the
FoleyRussell
Report on its views respecting the
need to improve staff status and career
prospects. Is it unrealistic to
suggest that all
the parliaments co-operate to
establish specially
designed joint training courses for
career officers in the techniques of
their
calling and in Australian and
comparative
parliamentary history, traditions,
etc.? Such
training courses might well use the
experience
and knowledge of retired senior
officers
and provide some kind of certification
or
evaluation which could assist in the
performance
appraisal system proposed by the
authors. Parliaments have ample funds
for far
less worthy causes and in view of the
small
numbers likely to be involved and the
unavailability of suitable courses
elsewhere, a
strong case could be made for courses
of a
modest duration. Such courses could
even
interest outsiders and possibly
generate
income.
The changes which the authors propose
are also needed because parliaments are
increasingly less of the mysterious
closed
shops they used to be. Their staff
turnovers
have risen noticeably and some
departing
staff have been vocal about the
deficiencies
they have experienced. Recruitment
seems to
be less nepotistic than earlier. Parliamentary
administrations have already improved
this
level of skill when one considers the
relaxed
style of years ago. At that time
incursions by
curious or critical outsiders were
easily
repelled: nowadays that is less
possible or
prudent. The question remains,
however,
whether the changes made are enough:
clearly Messrs Foley and Russell don't
think
so, nor do many members.
The advent of electronic technology,
especially computers, has had a strong
and, at
times, unsettling effect on
parliamentary
organisations. In general the
parliamentary
libraries have been far ahead of most
parliamentary
departments in establishing
automation,
while other departments have shown a
lack of readiness to move. All
parliamentary
departments are nowadays reliant on technical
expertise, often from unawed
outsiders,
to cope with automation: this has
introduced
a quite novel factor into the
complexities of
parliamentary administration. The
FoleyRussell
Report does not go into any depth on
this question which would benefit from
analysis of its implications. In the growing
complexity of running a parliament
traditional
power bases are not quite as solid as
they were. Staff are more apt to
question
authority, bent are also more
qualified and
anxious to have an input to policy formulation
at some levels. For these reasons it
seems
sensible to explore the possibility of
creating a
range of formal co-operative
administrative
techniques involving various levels of
staff on
an inter departmental basis. It is for
the staff's
benefit as well as for the needs of
the institution.
The establishment of a more clearly
'collegiate'
style of administration, at
appropriate
levels and for specific purposes,
would help
achieve some of the goals the
Foley-Russell
Report recommends. A certain amount of
experimentation and improvisation is
necessary
to accommodate the variety and changes
of personalities and the various
historical
factors present. What suits one
parliament
will not always suit others. One
cannot be too
prescriptive until all the factors are
known
which only the insider can really be
aware of.
Administrative restructuring at senior
level
may be far too pat a solution, Le. no
real solution
at all. The restructuring may need to
be
far more radical and more inclusive,
but it
will need to be flexible and
realistic. Neatness
may be the least useful solution in
the long
run.
The idea of a career parliamentary
service needs to be more strongly
underlined,
especially in smaller parliaments.
Where the
staff establishment is likely to be
small, the
career opportunities are necessarily
limited. It
may be impossible to expect even
moderately
rapid promotion, but it is feasible to
create
better job satisfaction by means of
rewards
and incentives. The parliaments should
not, I
believe, be unduly swayed by what is
done in
government departments. Possibly staff
exchange between similar parliaments
could
be explored. The parliamentary
libraries have
been interested in this idea and
several have
taken tentative steps. No doubt a
range of
options could be explored. but the
chief objective
remains to create a career
parliamentary
service with high standards, with
performance
appraisal, and capable of providing a
continuity and stability of management
in an
intrinsically volatile, unpredictable
milieu.
These career officers have to guard the long-
tenn interests of the parliament,
especially if
the political heads may be too
concerned with
quite other priorities and personal
factors,
such as keeping a party in power.9
The Foley-Russell Report opens up many
perspectives. Its value lies as much
in its stimulating
effect as in its specific analysis
which
is inad~quate
because
of the authors' attachment
to some well-entrenched myths. Their
understanding of the way parliamentary
culture really works seems incomplete
in
some regards. They also fail to
mention the
problem of political heads having
interests
and behavioural traits inimical to the
ultimate
welfare of the institution they
control.
Perhaps they chose to exclude this
difficult
topic from their purview. One can,
however,
readily agree with the authors that
parliaments
can scarcely survive as they are
presently run in a world becoming
increasingly
questioning of their relevance. The
institution
is too intrinsically valuable to be
allowed to drift haphazardly. There
are many
fine people staffing them and members
of
parliament are also anxious for the
institutions
to be more effective. The effort to
find
the creative ideas to bring all the
relevant
factors into harmony and create an
organisation
able to sustain the needs of a fast
approaching new century is surely well
worth
making by all who value parliamentary
government.
This spirit underlies the Report of
Messrs Foley and Russell, and they
merit our
regard for their contribution to this
goal.10
References
Some small stylistic improvements
would
enhance the Report if it is
re-printed. Plural
subjects are followed in several cases
by singular
verbs. The adverb 'however' is used
occasionally as a conjunction. More
serious is
the appalling bibliography which is a
silly
piece of work, inaccurate in some
details and
generally of little use. The authors
should seek
the help of the Victorian
Parliamentary
Library if there is any chance of a
re-issue.
2. The Paper by Dr Philomena Murray
entitled
Comparative Analysis
of Parliamentary Administration
0989, 121p.) represents almost the
only
recent attempt to survey this question
in Australia.
Dr Murray was commissioned in July
1989 by the Victorian Parliament to study 'the
administrative arrangements which
exist in
Parliaments of other states in
Australia and in
other relevant countries so that the
Parliamentary
administration in Victoria might
usefully
be examined in the light of the
arrangements
in comparable situations, (p .4). Much
data
were secured by means of
questionnaires.
The Paper contains a great deal of
information,
but it is not assembled in an easy
fashion for
the reader. The Paper obviously
entailed a
large amount of work and seems to have
been
compiled against tight deadlines. This
has not
assisted the result. It would be
greatly wel·
corned if a revised, better
worked-over and
better organised version of this
useful compilation
could be made. The copy I have seen
has no date of publication (presumably
1989),
or imprint on it. Its bibliogr~phy is also open
to improvement.
3. A detailed review of the nature of
changes to
public management in Britain, and also
applicable
to Australia, is found in The New
Public
Management' in Public
Administration Vol. 69,
No. 1 (Spring 1991).
4. Issued in December 1987. Produced
by desktop
publishing and available from the
office of the
Clerk of the Legislative Assembly.
5. It is curious that one of the
criticisms made by
members of the Upper House in their
debate
on the Foley-Russell Report was that,
contrary
to what the authors stated, there was
no consultation
by them with members. (See Parliamentary
Debates (Legislative Council
of
Victoria), 10 April 1991 p.582 ft.)
6. In December 1991 two Queensland
Ministers
and the Leader of the Opposition
resigned
their positions because of
malpractices in the
use of Members' entitlements.
Apparently a
large number of Members from all
parties of
the Queensland Parliament were also impli~
cated in these malpractices which had
occurred at an earlier period.
7. 'A Seat Apart:
Proposal: An Independent Continu~
ing Speakership for
New South Wales', by
K.
Rozzoli, M.P., pp. 182-185 in The Parliamen~
tarian (July 1991). This
Paper advocates some
novel notions which would greatly
benefit the
parliamentary institution in terms of
stability
and continuity of administration and political
impartiality. The Paper does not
directly
address the need for a Speaker's
accountability
for his administration. If Speakers
are
elected 'for a period not exceeding 10
years',
there is clearly need. for provision
of checks and
balances and monitoring of
performance. A
counterbalance needs to be found for
cases
where presiding officers (and
sometimes Clerks)
prove themselves capricious, unduly
interventionist,
or Simply silly. Presiding officers
have
little need to be accountable for much
of their
administration. Perhaps such qualities
are part
of the 'human condition' and do no
great harm
if restricted to interior decoration
and personal
comfort, but unfortunately unchecked
power
tends to seek ever new worlds to
conquer.
8. Political factors must always
predominate in
the affairs of parliaments. Elections
may bring
new Presiding Officers with little
prior
training and even with some axes to
grind
against staff who did not please them
when
they were backbenchers. There is
little can be
done under present arrangements to
guard
against eccentric or wilful Presiding
Officers.
Even Clerks have a wide scope for
arbitrariw
ness. The instructive and
extraordinary case of
Speaker Willis in NSW (1911) is
something of
an extreme example. Openness in
decisionmaking
and a greater degree of accountability
at all levels seem about the most one
can
expect. These are not likely to come
without
minor earthquakes and only under
particularly
favourable political constellations.
Perhaps this might be seen in years to
come as
something to be said for parliaments
where
Independents hold the balance of
power.
9. There is a lot of anecdotal
evidence about the
personality factor in the
parliamentary sphere.
It would be a
challenging task to research the
subject more deeply in its
relationship to how
parliaments are administered. Such a
task
would require a range of skills going
beyond
political science and could not be
carried out
without a great deal of inside help.
Probably
it cannot be done adequately.
(The author acknowledges the valuable
suggestions
he has received from Or D. H Clune of
the New
South Wales Parliamentary Library.)
Via SJL – “Congressman Elijah Cummings, in this brief clip, recalls the time he spent as a child at the Enoch Pratt Free Library in Baltimore. “The people who helped me the most were the librarians,” Cummings told Steve Kroft in a 60 Minutes interview
broadcast in January of this year, adding that the public library was
the only integrated institution in his neighborhood. Speaking about the
librarians, whom he credited with staying past their regular working
hours to help him with his schoolwork, enabling him to get out of
special ed, the longtime Baltimore congressman and chair of the House
Oversight Committee got emotional. “There are a lot of good people who
really care,” he said. The complete interview with Cummings, who died
October 24, 2019, is available from CBS News…”
“The People Who Helped Me the Most Were the Librarians” – Rep. Elijah Cummings
Grappling With The Purpose Of The Public Library
If public libraries are not for the rich, they probably are not otherwise for the poor. To understand the public library as a benevolent form of welfare would be to entirely miss the radical potential of the institution as a political project. It isn’t utopian, nor is about culturing the masses, nor offering the marginalized a space where they mustn’t “pay for coffee.” – The Baffler
