tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca-fr/topics/conventions-3775/articlesConventions – La Conversation2016-07-03T03:40:00Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/619632016-07-03T03:40:00Z2016-07-03T03:40:00ZExplainer: what is a ‘hung parliament’, and how will a government be formed?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/129084/original/image-20160703-18334-1qi9aq1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Talk has now turned to whether Australia will again have a minority government and a 'hung parliament'.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Tracey Nearmy</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Neither Malcolm Turnbull nor Bill Shorten was able to claim victory on election night. With <a href="https://theconversation.com/major-rebuff-to-malcolm-turnbull-as-poll-result-hovers-on-knife-edge-61960">uncertainty</a> surrounding whether either party will be able to secure a majority of lower house seats, talk has now turned to whether Australia will again have a minority government and a “hung parliament”.</p>
<p>So, what is a hung parliament? And what is the procedure for determining who will form the next government?</p>
<h2>What is a hung parliament?</h2>
<p>The party (or coalition of parties) that has a majority in the House of Representatives forms the government. </p>
<p>There are 150 seats in the House of Representatives. To form government in their own right, the Liberal/National Coalition or Labor requires 76 seats. If neither can form government in their own right, we have a “hung parliament”.</p>
<p>There is nothing in the Constitution to deal with the situation in which neither side can form a majority government. Instead, these matters are resolved by “conventions”. These conventions are the unwritten rules, practices and procedures that Australia inherited from the United Kingdom, upon which our system of government <a href="http://australianpolitics.com/democracy/key-terms/westminster-system">is based</a>.</p>
<h2>Forming a minority government</h2>
<p>If neither side has a clear majority, a minority government might be able to be formed with the support of minor party and independent MPs. </p>
<p>For this to occur, one side would need enough minor party and independent MPs to agree to vote with it to ensure the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2016/April/SupplyBills">budget supply bills</a> can be passed, and to support the minority government in a vote of no-confidence. This was what happened after the 2010 election, when the Gillard government received the support of Greens MP Adam Bandt and three independents to form a minority government. </p>
<p>While a hung parliament might seem like a relatively common phenomenon in recent times, historically they are more unusual. The 2010 election result was the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook43p/hungparliament">first hung parliament</a> since 1940.</p>
<p>If Turnbull ends up falling short of a majority but receives the support of enough minor party and independent MPs to form a minority government, he would inform the governor-general that he believes he has the confidence of a majority of the house and would seek to remain prime minister. </p>
<p>If Shorten were able to gather the support of the minor party and independent MPs, then Turnbull would need to resign and advise the governor-general to swear in Shorten as prime minister.</p>
<p>If it’s unclear which side has the support of the majority of the House of Representatives, the governor-general would in all likelihood allow the incumbent prime minister – in this case Turnbull – to remain in the position and to test whether he has the confidence of the house, on the floor of the parliament. </p>
<p>If there was a successful vote of no-confidence against Turnbull, he would then need to resign, and the governor-general might then swear in Shorten as prime minister.</p>
<h2>Does a minority government mean parliament will grind to a halt?</h2>
<p>While a hung parliament does mean a minority government will need to negotiate with independents or minor parties to pass its legislation though the House of Representatives, it does not necessarily mean it will be prevented from governing. </p>
<p>The Gillard minority government, for example, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jun/28/australia-productive-prime-minister">passed more legislation</a> in its first 700 days than the Abbott government did in the same period.</p>
<p>Perhaps this reminds us that the challenge for any government – whether it holds a majority in the House or Representatives or not – is still going to be getting legislation through the Senate.</p>
<h2>What effect will this have on a joint sitting?</h2>
<p>After a double-dissolution election, if the Senate again rejects the bills that were <a href="https://theconversation.com/election-explainer-what-does-it-mean-that-were-having-a-double-dissolution-election-56671">used as a “trigger”</a> for the election, the government can ask the governor-general to <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/%7E/link.aspx?_id=AFF6CA564BC3465AA325E73053DED4AA&_z=z#chapter-01_part-05_57">convene a joint sitting</a> of the House of Representatives and the Senate to consider that legislation.</p>
<p>With the election result being so close, the chances of a joint sitting now seem less likely. </p>
<p>Even if the Turnbull government is returned with a slim majority in the House of Representatives, it may not be enough to give it a majority in a joint sitting of both houses if there are a large number of crossbench senators, <a href="https://theconversation.com/after-messy-night-coalition-more-likely-to-form-government-but-pauline-hanson-is-in-the-senate-61207">as appears likely</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61963/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adam Webster does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There is nothing in the Constitution to deal with the situation in which neither side can form a majority government.Adam Webster, Lecturer, Adelaide Law School, University of AdelaideLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/581582016-05-02T00:24:34Z2016-05-02T00:24:34ZElection explainer: when does the government enter caretaker period and what does it mean?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120115/original/image-20160426-22383-4h8qr3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bill Shorten was correct to ask for access to senior public servants amid confusion over whether the 'caretaker period' has begun.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dan Himbrechts</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Ahead of a near-certain double-dissolution election being called for July 2, Labor is <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/bill-shorten-calls-for-caretaker-provisions-amid-fears-of-preelection-uncertainty-20160421-goc8yh.html">warning</a> the government that it needs to start acting in accordance with the “caretaker conventions”.</p>
<p>The government, however, has shown no interest in an early caretaker period. It even appears to be revelling in the announcement of important appointments. </p>
<p>In March, the shadow treasurer, Chris Bowen, <a href="http://www.afr.com/news/economy/labors-chris-bowen-hits-scott-morrison-on-unilateral-treasury-appointments-20160327-gns1ta">criticised</a> the government for making senior financial appointments during the “quasi-caretaker” period after the government announced the reappointment of Australian Consumer and Competition Commission chairman Rod Sims. </p>
<p>Late last week, the government <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/apr/28/coalition-to-reappoint-disability-discrimination-commissioner">announced</a> it would be appointing a disability discrimination commissioner to the Human Rights Commission before the election is called.</p>
<p>At a technical level at least the government is right to say the caretaker conventions have not yet kicked in. So when does the caretaker period start? And what does it mean in practice?</p>
<h2>Justifications for the caretaker conventions</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/">Australia’s Constitution</a> is silent on whether the government can continue as normal in the lead-up to an election for the House of Representatives. There is nothing constitutionally prohibiting a business-as-usual approach. </p>
<p>But, by convention, there are limits on what an incumbent government can do in this so-called “caretaker” period. Within these limits, the routine business of government is able to continue.</p>
<p>The caretaker conventions’ central justification is that, once the House of Representatives has been dissolved and until the election result is known, the government is effectively governing without parliamentary oversight. The conventions ensure no major decisions are made without accountability.</p>
<p>The caretaker conventions also reduce the policies and funding commitments an incumbent government can lock an incoming government into. This gives the incoming government greater freedom to pursue its electoral mandate.</p>
<p>The conventions are intended to reduce the politicisation of the public service, by taking away the ability of an incumbent government to inappropriately employ public servants in partisan activities during the election campaign. </p>
<p>Finally, the conventions are intended to reduce any other “advantage” an incumbent government might have because of the resources at its disposal.</p>
<p>Of all the conventions, the caretaker conventions are perhaps the most uncontested. Unusually for conventions, they are written down. At the Commonwealth level, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet issues a <a href="https://www.dpmc.gov.au/pmc/publication/guidance-caretaker-conventions">set of guidelines</a> that are updated at each election.</p>
<h2>The scope of the caretaker conventions</h2>
<p>The Commonwealth guidelines summarise the caretaker conventions, which come down to three deceptively simple rules. These are that an incumbent government avoids:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>“major policy decisions” that will commit an incoming government;</p></li>
<li><p>“significant appointments”; or</p></li>
<li><p>“major contracts or undertakings”.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>If it is unavoidable for a government to make such a decision, it should do so in consultation with the opposition.</p>
<p>There are also conventions that regulate government advertising during an election period. The departments of Finance and Prime Minister and Cabinet review all government advertising campaigns at the start of the caretaker period and recommend whether or not they should continue. </p>
<p>Generic, operational campaigns – such as defence force recruiting campaigns – will generally continue. Campaigns that feature particularly politically controversial policies, or highlight particular ministers, will not. </p>
<p>Any decision to continue advertising campaigns should be done only with bipartisan agreement. Legislative restrictions on political advertising apply during an election period.</p>
<p>Behind this remarkable level of surface consensus on the caretaker conventions in the guidelines, however, lies a vast degree of disagreement over their scope and application to individual cases.</p>
<p>The Commonwealth guidelines say their application to individual cases “requires judgment and common sense”. What is a “major policy decision”? When is an appointment “significant”? </p>
<p>Too conservative an approach would inappropriately hamstring day-to-day government. Too liberal an approach might undermine democratic accountability and politicise the public service.</p>
<p>In most election campaigns there is usually a stoush or two over whether the caretaker conventions have been breached. The Victorian Coalition government was accused of breaching the conventions by signing the East West Link contract in late 2014. Labor was in known opposition to the project. The Napthine government argued it signed the contract before the caretaker period started. </p>
<p>While the government was <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/comment/politicians-reluctant-to-twiddle-thumbs-in-caretaker-periods-20141109-11jlko.html">technically correct</a>, Labor successfully campaigned hard on the decision. There was a general feeling that the government ought to have exercised greater restraint.</p>
<p>Another controversy erupted in the lead-up to the 2013 federal election. Throughout the caretaker period, the Rudd government continued to run a A$30 million <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/02/asylum-seeker-ads-could-cost-37m">advertising campaign</a> in Australia and overseas in support of its asylum seeker policies. The opposition did not support the continuation of the campaign – at least in Australia. It argued that it was politically partisan. </p>
<p>Complaints were made to the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2014/s4014996.htm">Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet</a> and the <a href="https://www.anao.gov.au/work/correspondence/government-advertising-%E2%80%94-boat-no-visa-advertising-campaign-continuation-during">auditor-general</a>. Both explained that compliance with the conventions ultimately rested with ministers, not public servants – and that public servants must comply with ministerial directions even when they believed they were in breach of the conventions.</p>
<h2>When does the ‘caretaker period’ start?</h2>
<p>There is occasionally some confusion as to when the “caretaker period” starts. </p>
<p>Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has said an election will be held on July 2, but that he will not ask the governor-general to dissolve parliament until after the budget is brought down. So, are we in caretaker mode yet?</p>
<p>The simple – although not quite complete – answer is no. The Commonwealth guidelines are relatively clear as to when the caretaker conventions begin:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… at the time the House of Representatives is dissolved. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The conventions continue:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… until the election result is clear or, if there is a change of government, until the new government is appointed.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There is some confusion, because the guidelines also provide for “pre-election consultation” between the opposition and appropriate government officials, subject to the government’s approval. Such consultation is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… intended to ensure a smooth transition if an election results in a change of government. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>These are not strictly “caretaker conventions”. They are a practice that the major parties have agreed upon since the mid-1970s.</p>
<p>Pre-election consultation is authorised to occur over a longer period than that in which the caretaker conventions operate: from the date of the announcement of the election or three months from the expiry of the House of Representatives, whichever comes first. As such, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten was correct to <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/bill-shorten-calls-for-caretaker-provisions-amid-fears-of-preelection-uncertainty-20160421-goc8yh.html">call on Turnbull</a> to allow him and his shadow ministry access to senior public servants.</p>
<p>Some disagreement still remains over when the caretaker period starts – or, at least, when governments should exercise some caution as to major decisions, appointments and contracts.</p>
<p>Turnbull would do well to learn from recent experience in Victoria. While governments might be technically correct that a decision falls outside the caretaker period, the public has little sympathy for a government that rushes to lock in a major policy commitment when it knows an election is near.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58158/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gabrielle Appleby receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>It is unusual to invoke the caretaker conventions so far out from an election. So why is Labor clamouring for them to kick in?Gabrielle Appleby, Associate Professor, UNSW Law School, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/498062015-12-10T19:13:07Z2015-12-10T19:13:07ZYes minister: how political appointments tip the scales of fearless advice<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103126/original/image-20151125-18267-1kx0p1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C31%2C1920%2C1287&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Australia's public service has gradually become more politicised in recent times.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmtimages/3286566742/in/photolist-61qvMQ-91bPKR-df4vu5-7KmaNJ-qhxi4Y-7haUXZ-mHiNDM-48qc8x-iHMMb3-PhnR7-6hv4sT-co46f5-cqfNG7-5nzYKh-395WXx-eA35G6-mHkGkj-vcMz-P9URH-7sKews-6qhShY-kmeeTY-96Bkfr-391TRa-by8Ln1-x1mvCN-cnX48f-aZV48D-cXUReL-4SZmnN-bSnCHa-xcNjZm-6QHjjc-awRrL-f8fEXm-4fy3ag-5D48Jg-3nK5gm-8ZJNBG-euuwxL-4wZwv5-bCZgen-6pkfTC-6DWwa-peqeCz-5Y3htE-by8LhA-bM3sAc-bM3sxr-bM3swk">Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Some regard the Westminster tradition of a politically neutral public service as a self-serving fiction. Others see it as an ideal to which governments and their civil services should aspire, though may never quite attain. </p>
<p>There are few hard and fast conventions involved in cultivating an independent government administrative system. Yet there are traditions or principles that many see as fundamental to good governance, or even to an effective democracy. </p>
<p>Straying from these leads to accusations that the government is politicising the public service. But what that means isn’t exactly clear. It might suggest the appointment of party-political representatives to public positions; the appointment of known government sympathisers to public positions; or some other way of preventing professional civil servants from providing “<a href="http://press.anu.edu.au/titles/australia-and-new-zealand-school-of-government-anzsog-2/frank_fearless_citation/">frank and fearless</a>” advice to ministers. </p>
<p>Despite the lack of agreement about what politicisation means – and its significance – there’s almost universal criticism of governments that stray from the principles that underpin neutrality. </p>
<p>In practice, the accusation of “politicisation” often accompanies appointments made by an incoming government. These may be to departments; to government agencies, such as <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-04/turnbull-not-consulted-over-appointments-to-abc-panel/5571754">the ABC</a>; to integrity agencies, such as the ombudsman; and, more often, the appointment of former politicians to <a href="https://theconversation.com/mr-hockey-goes-to-washington-so-what-challenges-will-he-face-49642">diplomatic postings</a>. </p>
<h2>Obedience and integrity</h2>
<p>The Australian Public Service operates near to the model of a professional public service where it serves successive governments without fear or favour. Changes of government typically mean that experienced, professional secretaries have remained to pilot their new ministers through. </p>
<p>There have been aberrations, such as the 1996 “<a href="https://theconversation.com/abbott-and-the-public-service-where-now-on-department-heads-18465">night of the long knives</a>” that dispatched six departmental heads. But most governments in past decades have relied on a cadre of professional civil servants to head departments and agencies even after power changes hands. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103134/original/image-20151125-18227-uqddu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103134/original/image-20151125-18227-uqddu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103134/original/image-20151125-18227-uqddu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103134/original/image-20151125-18227-uqddu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103134/original/image-20151125-18227-uqddu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103134/original/image-20151125-18227-uqddu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103134/original/image-20151125-18227-uqddu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Max Moore-Wilton was appointed as Australia’s top public servant by John Howard.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://one.aap.com.au/#/search/Max%20Moore-Wilton">AAP</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It is this cadre that enables the public service to remain as neutral as possible, especially when incoming governments are determined to implement their “mandates”. This reflects a fundamental principle that governments need to be “responsive” to their electors.</p>
<p>But problems can arise when appointees pay little attention to “frank and fearless” and see their role largely as doing the minister’s bidding. That’s stretching the notion of responsiveness too far.</p>
<p>The civil service is traditionally required to act in an impartial manner – that is, not to privilege particular interests over others and to behave in a politically neutral way. This is especially significant in relation to government agencies that investigate and adjudicate on complaints about and mistakes made by government. </p>
<h2>Simple improvements</h2>
<p>Integrity agencies, such as the Office of the Information Commissioner or the Human Rights Commission, are required to investigate citizen complaints about government behaviour. They need to be seen to be at arm’s length from government. </p>
<p>Other agencies, such as the Electoral Commission, the Auditor-General or research bodies such as CSIRO or the Productivity Commission, also need to be at arm’s length so they can operate credibly in providing balanced advice. </p>
<p>Much more can be done to promote the independence of these agencies. A fundamental problem is that they rely on funding through the budget process. Some governments, at both Commonwealth and state levels, have used this as a lever to constrain agencies from following their remit when governments are unhappy with their activities. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/respect-independent-statutory-bodies-as-central-to-democracy-37634">Human Rights Commission</a> is a recent example. </p>
<p>Making these agencies responsible to parliament, rather than to the government of the day, would mean that funding, and accountability, would be delivered through bipartisan bodies, such as the Public Accounts Committee. This would protect integrity agencies from direct government interference. </p>
<p>Governments are expected to represent a diversity of interests. That becomes less likely with a politicised public service. </p>
<p>Public agencies with responsibilities to consider the impact of policy on broad community groups, for instance, or to manage grants programs, need to have appointments that reflect community diversity. These appointments need to be treated with care to ensure they remain free of accusations of favouritism, cronyism, nepotism or vote-buying.</p>
<h2>Avoiding cynicism</h2>
<p>Cynical observers may be concerned about the politicisation of policy advice, especially that provided by public inquiries. When chaired by appointees with known views on the subject they rightly engender <a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-should-a-lobby-group-chair-the-audit-commission-19523">public cynicism</a> about the likely outcomes of these ostensibly independent inquiries. </p>
<p>This was the case when noted climate sceptic <a href="https://theconversation.com/killing-renewables-softly-with-endless-reviews-23409">Dick Warburton</a> handed down a report on the Renewable Energy Target, and when education conservative <a href="https://theconversation.com/national-curriculum-the-latest-target-of-coalitions-culture-wars-21910">Kevin Donnelly</a> reviewed Australia’s national curriculum. These reports usually find their way to the rubbish bin once governments of a different hue assume office. </p>
<p>In contrast, more broad-based and less politicised inquiries – such as the <a href="https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf">Gonski review</a> of school funding – may well retain their currency for longer. </p>
<p>There are arrangements in place that may dull the excesses of political appointments – such as the Public Accounts Committee, the Senate estimates process, codes of ministerial conduct and independent audits. </p>
<p>But unlike the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand, Australia hasn’t appointed an independent commissioner for public appointments. An independent appointments body may help ensure that the government of the day cannot directly influence appointments to agencies and programs that specifically require diversity of interests and arm’s length from government.</p>
<p>The public service has gradually become more politicised in recent years. But this is a bigger problem for agencies broadly described as integrity agencies and for bodies where public perception of neutrality are important to their operations, such as the ABC or the Electoral Commission. </p>
<p>Institutional change, along the lines of what’s already operating in other democratic systems, might produce independent appointments and reduce the public angst each time a “political” appointment is made to such boards or commissions. In these cases, governments might finally accept that arm’s-length governance is preferable to public cynicism and diminution of the standing of important agencies that serve to uphold democratic standards.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article is part of a series on <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/breaking-political-conventions">breaking political conventions</a>. Look out for more articles exploring various political conventions in the coming days.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49806/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Aulich holds a position on the Territories Records Advisory Council, appointed by the Chief Minister of the ACT.</span></em></p>The public service is meant to be independent and bipartisan. But “political” appointments and funding arrangements can hamstring their ability to give fair and frank advice.Chris Aulich, Visiting Professor, Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/499012015-12-09T19:15:46Z2015-12-09T19:15:46ZMutated conventions: how secrecy in the name of security harms democracy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103140/original/image-20151125-23825-133wwcl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Fear dominates political conversations and slowly strengthens the acceptability of secrecy in 21st-century governments</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/devar/64841388/in/photolist-6Jk5Y-8zsHnW-cHZ7hu-4ycrh5-9f6DqL-jU5ffp-jU67Y6-8Mb678-tEsAP-9A6BrZ-9A6B5T-eiRUg7-8zpCSr-8Tme8k-8NPnG9-7ZMeth-664mQt-7BtXTi-8NURda-jU7BXs-9nQhQr-8Meivj-rtUbUA-jU7vmb-8Uaeqb-8Me5gw-8Xwsdf-9CYJP2-cQJfZJ-7Jh2TK-bqa84v-8Xtqfv-9jdptk-e6WnWh-9nTrVo-7Jc8DD-ejYVsu-uC4XET-k5JYX-8TREAC-9iRJSJ-bSch4Z-jU5Yux-bXUQww-buHxf4-b42teB-db6qEK-9oR84B-9oQg7N-jU7zJ9">Ben Eenhoorn</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Secrecy is anathema to democracy. Without transparency, government may contravene its peoples’ values and violate human rights with impunity.</p>
<p>Governments rarely declare themselves corrupt, confess to lies, or admit to participating or being complicit in crimes. They have many resources and connections at their disposal, including media, police, military and security agencies. This mean critics are easily discredited or vilified. </p>
<p>An open criminal justice system, free media, active civil society, whistleblower protection and the ability of victims to be heard are essential checks for preventing, exposing and redressing state abuse of power. However, Australian governments – and particularly the incumbent Coalition – are <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2015/s4265831.htm">systematically shutting down</a> these avenues of scrutiny.</p>
<h2>Secrecy and the border</h2>
<p>Australia’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-01/border-force-commissioner-operational-matters-roman-quaedvlieg/6586274">deepening pall of secrecy</a> is rationalised as essential to protect operational matters and intelligence that, if revealed, would jeopardise national security. </p>
<p>Traditionally, operational matters and intelligence have, in limited circumstances, been exempt from the open government principles that mandate freedom of information. But these exemptions have been relatively narrow, open to challenge and frequently subject to <a href="http://www.ipc.nsw.gov.au/fact-sheet-what-public-interest-test">public interest tests</a>.</p>
<p>Exemptions to openness for operational matters and intelligence weren’t designed to prevent contentious government policy being scrutinised. But the government’s resort to claims of secrecy for intelligence or operational matters – or “on-water matters”, in the context of Operation Sovereign Borders – is now <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2015/s4347488.htm">used as a tactic</a> to deflect awkward political questions and avoid scrutiny and accountability.</p>
<p>The 2001 Tampa election was a <a href="http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/how_tampa_became_a_turning_point/">watershed moment</a> in Australian politics. It marked a new phase in the overlapping of politics, national security and the control and management of information.</p>
<p>In the lead-up to that election, then-prime minister John Howard and his ministers managed to parlay the plight of several hundred desperate asylum seekers to electoral victory. They did so by manipulating fears about “boat people”, “illegals” and – in the wake of the September 11 attacks – terrorists. </p>
<p>Managing the story was essential to ensuring that the wages of fear became the currency of electoral success. The government’s strategy included ensuring no “<a href="http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/04/17/1019020661365.html">humanising images</a>” of the asylum seekers became public. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Former_Committees/scrafton/report/c02">False accusations</a> that the asylum seekers threw their children overboard assisted the strategy by amplifying the fears of sections of the electorate that were racially ambivalent or prejudiced. Though the government managed the information well enough to get re-elected, it was later revealed that the asylum seekers never threw their children overboard. </p>
<p>Since 2001, Australia has had a number of elections where national security – particularly counter-terrorism and border protection – were critical elements. Today, security stories beat a constant tattoo at the heart of politics. </p>
<h2>Alternative stories</h2>
<p>Unofficial security stories can be damaging to governments. In 2007, it was revealed the government and the Australian Federal Police had unfairly treated and unjustly vilified an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhamed_Haneef">Indian national working as a doctor</a> in Brisbane, Muhamed Haneef. </p>
<p>What started as a story about a terrorist in our midst quickly morphed into one of abuse of power when Haneef’s lawyer released information contradicting the official narrative. </p>
<p>Legislation <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australias-new-security-laws-explained-20140926-10mh6d.html">passed in 2014</a>, which criminalises reporting of “special intelligence operations”, makes it far less likely that official stories, such as the one that presented Haneef as a major threat to the Australian community, can now be publicly contested. </p>
<p>In the 14 years since Tampa, there has been a shift from attempting to manage national security stories to controlling them. Strategies of information control include: refusing to release information; refusing to answer questions; criminalising the release of information by unofficial sources; and creating a category of acquiescent “embedded” journalists and lawyers through covert and overt security vetting processes. </p>
<p>Another strategy is providing <a href="https://theconversation.com/national-security-bills-compound-existing-threats-to-media-freedom-29946">immunity from prosecution</a> to security agencies. The result is that contentious or illegal activities committed by these agencies are never revealed, contested or adjudicated through processes of open justice. </p>
<p>Secrecy facilitates an uncontested space for officially sanctioned stories about security. The “national security” stories that support governments, police and security agencies set up clear binaries between the vulnerable public and threatening enemies. These provide a stage for political leaders to act and speak resolutely about threat and protection, champion laws that are tough but fair, and represent the police and security agencies as empowered, capable and operating solely in the national interest.</p>
<p>Under the guise of national security, governments, police and security agencies frequently engage in breaches of human rights, are influenced by partisan politics, exaggerate threats, generate fear for party political reasons or, in the case of police and intelligence agencies, organisational gain. </p>
<p>Also, many measures that are championed in the name of security are poorly targeted, ineffective or counter-productive. </p>
<p>The spread of secrecy under the banner of operational matters and intelligence excises uncomfortable facts that complicate or contradict sanitised stories about politics and security. Secrecy is a weapon of information control that valorises official stories and outlaws those who expose governments and police and security agencies to scrutiny.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article is part of a series on <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/breaking-political-conventions">breaking political conventions</a>. Look out for more articles exploring various political conventions in the coming days.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49901/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jude McCulloch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Australian society has become dangerously accustomed to our politicians using “national security” as an excuse for the obfuscation of sticky truths.Jude McCulloch, Professor of Criminology, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/498152015-12-08T19:17:30Z2015-12-08T19:17:30ZFollowing suit: why political conventions matter<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103100/original/image-20151125-4062-cegv2f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Australia still follows Westminster in allowing key principles of democratic accountability to operate according to convention</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/bradhammonds/13702284943/in/photolist-mSPMW8-7aXS7J-t8d8A-odjdJ3-85ha4U-otoN6h-DdREM-7sxXMP-qnGxQG-n5hqc7-4aQ2BD-bgEeaK-914ied-7mhJW5-c2JWAb-grUtyr-59VnJ-dAT8VR-oF3RKS-qPAUfS-8YgUu-dLZDQn-naSexz-5WQjQB-kSz8pA-nV1XCz-dWJts1-gTdhHJ-c3sAKw-oGgV9W-6nv36U-xoiYUv-5gqRy9-rsASzZ-nFZkVM-bkyUcf-8La6BT-914khA-bkyZpw-y71t3-bvZUpo-dq2qjE-pxHkg9-fwsGrf-eRpuhZ-6BbamL-zGAViz-5BKURH-5WVugh-y71t2">Brad Hammonds</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Conventions are accepted practices that don’t have the authority of law but depend instead on the force of shared values and expectations. They are more fluid and contestable than legal rules and tend to evolve over time. </p>
<p>All political systems make extensive use of conventions as part of their political culture. But such conventions are particularly important in systems based on the United Kingdom’s Westminster model. </p>
<h2>Wacky Westminster</h2>
<p>The United Kingdom has no formal, written constitution – though it does have much legislation that is constitutionally relevant. It relies on conventions to define some of its most fundamental constitutional principles. These include the democratic principles that elected governments should be accountable to their citizens and respect their rights. </p>
<p>Though the Australian Commonwealth has a formal constitution as part of its federal settlement with the states, it still follows Westminster in allowing key principles of democratic accountability to operate according to convention.</p>
<p>Many of these conventions are contested. Even the most fundamental democratic convention underpinning the electoral process – that the governor-general acts only on the advice of the prime minister with the support of a majority in the House of Representatives – was successfully challenged in 1975. </p>
<p>The governor-general at the time, Sir John Kerr, acted on his own initiative and dismissed the Whitlam Labor government. That opened the way for the election of the Fraser Coalition government. This highly controversial decision influenced subsequent political attitudes towards the importance of constitutional conventions. </p>
<p>In general, the political left has tended to be in favour of strict observance of constitutional conventions as a matter of independent principle. The political right, though also respectful of established conventions, has shown itself less squeamish about breaking conventions in the name of the national interest as defined by the government of the day.</p>
<h2>Polity and policy</h2>
<p>Conventions of ministerial responsibility underpin the daily accountability of ministers to parliament and the public. Broadly speaking, ministers are obliged to take responsibility for the conduct of their portfolios in the sense of responding to parliamentary requests for information or imposing remedies when faults are brought to light. They are also required to answer directly to the public by taking questions from the media. </p>
<p>Ministers are expected to take the blame for actions for which they are personally responsible, but not for those that are clearly the fault of officials. Oppositions – and commentators – commonly claim ministers should resign both for their own mistakes and for those of their officials, but this has never been accepted practice.</p>
<p>By convention, misleading parliament is one of the few offences that can precipitate a ministerial resignation. This unfortunately encourages ministers to be evasive and economical with the truth. Otherwise, ministers decide how much information they reveal to parliament or the public – the only sanction being political accountability to voters.</p>
<p>As the <a href="https://theconversation.com/back-to-the-wall-brough-dramatically-switches-his-story-on-slipper-diary-51677">Mal Brough case</a> underlines, the convention is flexible in application, which largely depends on the prime minister’s judgement of the relative political costs of retaining or discarding a minister. Even if Brough remains in parliament, however, the damage he has sustained shows the continuing force of the convention.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103095/original/image-20151125-18261-kilsmc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/103095/original/image-20151125-18261-kilsmc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103095/original/image-20151125-18261-kilsmc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103095/original/image-20151125-18261-kilsmc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103095/original/image-20151125-18261-kilsmc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103095/original/image-20151125-18261-kilsmc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/103095/original/image-20151125-18261-kilsmc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The sacking of Gough Whitlam brought condemnation for its clear challenge to previously respected political conventions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">National Archives of Australia. NAA: A6180, 13/11/75/33</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Ministerial responsibility has also been used to protect the anonymity of public servants, on the ground that only ministers should answer for their departments and agencies. A number of structural reforms, such as the development of Senate estimates committees and the establishment of the ombudsman, have opened public servants up to direct scrutiny of administrative actions, while maintaining ministerial responsibility for matters of “policy”. </p>
<p>The boundaries between “policy” and “administration” are inherently contestable and a common cause of friction. If ombudsmen or auditors-general venture into criticising the substance of government policy (instead of its implementation), for instance, they are likely to face objections from ministers on the ground that the elected government has the right to impose its own policy direction. </p>
<p>At the same time, ministers surrender their democratic accountability obligations when they choose to devolve responsibility onto others. An example is outsourcing implementation of controversial policies to private sector contractors not subject to the same accountability regime as government officials. </p>
<h2>Yes, minister</h2>
<p>Relations between ministers and the public service are also subject to shifting conventions. Westminster-based traditions support a politically neutral public service appointed on merit and loyally serving the government of the day. </p>
<p>But since the early 1990s, heads of departments (secretaries), who are appointed by the prime minister, have been employed on limited-term contracts terminable at any time. In 1996, the incoming Coalition prime minister, John Howard, broke the convention that incumbent secretaries would serve out their terms under a new government, by immediately replacing six secretaries. </p>
<p>The convention was restored by the next Labor prime minister, Kevin Rudd, but broken again by the Coalition’s Tony Abbott. Labor seems to see the value of trusting the professionalism of the public service, while the Coalition, being more doubtful of the capacity and loyalty of public servants, seeks to vigorously impose its own political control over the machinery of government. </p>
<p>All recent governments have emphasised the importance of media management and have increased the number and influence of political advisers. This has weakened the close relationship with public servants on which Westminster public service conventions depend.</p>
<p>Other areas in which conventions are both important and controversial include relations between the executive and judicial branches of government, the extent of political patronage in government appointments, and the use of public funds for political campaigning. </p>
<p>While conventions have the general advantage of being free from legalistic rigidity, they can be open to abuse for partisan reasons. The fact that they depend on political sanctions for enforcement places a particular onus on conventions surrounding transparency of government information as a safeguard of democratic accountability.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This is the first in a series on <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/breaking-political-conventions">breaking political conventions</a>. Look out for more articles exploring various political conventions in the coming days.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49815/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Mulgan receives funding from the ARC.</span></em></p>Political conventions may be challenged and redefined by every new government, but it is their role in promoting political accountability that ensures the health of our democracy.Richard Mulgan, Emeritus Professor, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/450652015-07-24T05:22:51Z2015-07-24T05:22:51ZGrowth of conventions shows geeks have always wanted to meet up IRL<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89546/original/image-20150723-22814-p8orai.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Taking a break from their screens to meet up in real life.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/quakecon/14498139488/">quakecon</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>One of the largest LAN party videogame conventions, <a href="http://www.quakecon.org/">Quakecon</a> returns for its 19th meet since 1996, with more than 9,000 people attending to “frag” each other playing the renowned first person shooter. Recently, an estimated 130,000 fans attended <a href="http://www.comic-con.org/">Comicon</a> in San Diego. For the month of October 2015 alone, there are <a href="http://news.ansible.uk/conlisti.html">22 conventions worldwide</a>, and this excludes commercial conventions.</p>
<p>Observers of fan conventions often express surprise that people who met online might want to meet IRL – “in real life”, or in person. This is often and entirely incorrectly held true of gamers, particularly, who are conceived of being unsociable, solitary creatures. This perception has been compounded by the <a href="http://journeyplanet.weebly.com/uploads/1/5/7/1/15715530/gamergatedrinktank.pdf">#gamergate controversy</a>, in which many prominent members of the gaming community were harassed – most notably <a href="http://gawker.com/what-is-gamergate-and-why-an-explainer-for-non-geeks-1642909080">women</a> <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/17/brianna-wu-gamergate-human-cost">developers</a>, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/07/in-praise-of-leigh-alexander-gamergate-video-games-sexism-bullying">journalists</a> and <a href="http://kotaku.com/terror-threat-targets-anita-sarkeesian-for-speaking-at-1646371245">commentators</a>. This might suggest that gamers are a closed, antagonistic and predominantly male-centred group. Fortunately, the reverse is often true.</p>
<p>Such socialisation and fan meet-ups have a long history – the first <a href="http://www.starburstmagazine.com/features/feature-articles/11452-history-worldcon">Worldcon was held in 1939</a>. Charities exist for sending fans with limited means or those from <a href="http://con-or-bust.org/about/">under-represented groups</a> to conventions around the world. There are even conventions for convention runners (but only if you are a <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SMOF">Secret Master of Fandom</a>. Behind the images of convention-goers dressed as cheerful-looking anime, television or film characters is an established community.</p>
<h2>Conventions, the industry and fans.</h2>
<p>There are two broad types of fan convention. The commercially run enterprise is run with profit in mind – these events tend to be large, well-publicised events such as <a href="http://www.comic-con.org">San Diego Comicon</a>, <a href="http://www.gencon.com">GenCon</a> and <a href="http://paxsite.com">PAX</a>. Subsidiary events often attract industry professionals, while large conventions are often used as a springboard to release new work or products.</p>
<p>For example, Comicon is now where companies like LucasArts showcase forthcoming work: this year they treated 6,000 fans to a free outdoor concert, new reveals about the forthcoming Star Wars film, and guest star appearances from the cast. Similarly, <a href="http://www.e3expo.com/">E3</a>, <a href="http://www.gdconf.com">GDC</a> and <a href="http://www.gamescom-cologne.com">Gamescom</a> bring together industry professionals, journalists and fans for a weekend of new games announcements, publicity and promotions. They are cheerful and noisy events, known for huge queues, freebies and panels featuring guest speakers and celebrities. The gender split of attendees at Comicon was <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2015/07/07/comic-con-2015-and-gender-parity-heres-why-the-geek-stereotype-is-nearly-dead/">equal this year at 49% each</a> (the remaining 2% made up of non-binary attendees).</p>
<h2>It’s all about the fans</h2>
<p>Fan-run conventions such as <a href="http://www.worldcon.org/">Worldcon</a>, which hosts the science fiction Oscars each year in the form of the <a href="http://www.thehugoawards.org/">Hugo Awards</a>, are no less riotous, but on a rather different scale. Worldcon is typical of these conventions in that it is entirely run by volunteers. Unusually, the location of Worldcon changes each year, as voted for by attendees, so teams <a href="http://dublin2019.com/">bid in advance</a> to host subsequent events and run lengthy election campaigns. </p>
<p>Fan-run conventions focus more on showcasing a mixture of authors, creative experts and fans, with often extensive programmes where attendees can see everything from authors playing and recommending their favourite boardgames, to discussions on diversity and representation in fan fiction, to readings and signings by people at the top of their field. The lower attendance figures allow for a more intimate setting where guests, speakers and fans can mingle.</p>
<p>Conventions of all shapes and forms are an increasingly important element of fandom – after all, getting together with several thousand like-minded people with the added incentive of parties, meets, talks and discussions by respected and creative people seems like a recipe for enjoyment. </p>
<p>For gaming events such as Quakecon, it’s also the opportunity to play and compete against people who attendees may have known for years, but never met in person. Mainstream sports fans will also recognise the value of watching those at the very top of their game play competitively. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89463/original/image-20150723-22852-1i0w6mf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89463/original/image-20150723-22852-1i0w6mf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89463/original/image-20150723-22852-1i0w6mf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89463/original/image-20150723-22852-1i0w6mf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89463/original/image-20150723-22852-1i0w6mf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89463/original/image-20150723-22852-1i0w6mf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89463/original/image-20150723-22852-1i0w6mf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89463/original/image-20150723-22852-1i0w6mf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Competitive gaming is a big part of gaming conventions, with big cash prizes.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/viagallery/2037258538/">viagallery</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Online and Real Worlds Collide</h2>
<p>The amount of convention-goers continues to grow as fans reach out to each other worldwide. This is partly driven by a feeling of deep reciprocity among fans: that attending is “giving back” to the community. And it’s for this same reason that ructions like #gamergate and others are so alarming for the community in question. </p>
<p>The Hugos are currently the subject of <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/20/george-rr-martin-hugo-awards-vote-game-of-thrones-science-fiction">huge controversy</a> after two groups of right-wing authors managed to influence the nominations by releasing a recommended reading list, and having supporters block vote for these authors. Destablising such niche and esoteric groups causes great alarm, as fans realise that despite their shared experiences and interests, their cultural values and perceptions of the world may differ wildly.</p>
<p>It’s comforting to regard fandom as one large, happy, geeky family, but the growing care and attention given by conference runners to their Codes of Conduct also speaks of a group very much aware of the need to make no assumptions about others, and to provide clear guidelines for behaviour within the convention. While conventions continue to grow and provide exciting places for fans to meet and share experiences, it’s unwise to regard them are utopian spaces.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45065/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Esther MacCallum-Stewart does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>You might think gamers are a closed, antagonistic and predominantly male-centred group. Fortunately, the reverse is often true.Esther MacCallum-Stewart, Research Fellow, University of the West of EnglandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/168172013-08-07T20:16:18Z2013-08-07T20:16:18ZExplainer: what are the caretaker government conventions?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/28838/original/553kp5x5-1375855201.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Now that governor-general Quentin Bryce has issued the writs for the election and dissolved parliament, the government is in caretaker mode. But what does this mean?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Coalition has raised <a href="http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/abbott-wants-answers-over-caretaker-convention-on-png-deal/story-e6frfkp9-1226692577614">concerns</a> that the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-06/an-auspng-asylum-deal/4869128">Memorandum of Understanding</a> with Papua New Guinea over the Manus Island asylum seeker processing deal was entered into after the caretaker conventions commenced. </p>
<p>But what are these conventions and what are the consequences of breaching them?</p>
<h2>What are the caretaker conventions?</h2>
<p>The caretaker conventions have been adhered to by all political parties in Australia for decades. They set the ground rules for how governments are to behave in the lead-up to the election and in the post-election period until the election result is clear and a new government (if there is a change of government) is appointed. The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet issues formal <a href="http://www.dpmc.gov.au/guidelines/docs/caretaker_conventions.pdf">Guidance on Caretaker Conventions</a> before each election.</p>
<p>The caretaker conventions started applying to the Commonwealth government at 5:30pm on August 5, 2013, upon the dissolution of parliament.</p>
<h2>Why do the caretaker conventions exist?</h2>
<p>There are two rationales for the operation of the caretaker conventions. The first is that once parliament is dissolved, ministers are no longer “accountable” to parliament for their actions and should therefore be constrained in the way they behave.</p>
<p>The second rationale is that it is unfair if a (potentially) outgoing government can bind a future government just before it comes into office. If it could do so, a losing government could leave all kinds of booby-traps or impose enormous financial commitments upon its successor. </p>
<p>The caretaker conventions are intended to avoid unfairness and to constrain potentially inappropriate actions while parliament is dissolved and until the newly elected government takes office.</p>
<h2>What limits apply to government actions during the caretaker period?</h2>
<p>During the caretaker period, the ordinary administration of government must continue. It is only in relation to particular high level matters that there are any constraints. The conventions therefore provide that during the caretaker period the government should not: take major policy decisions that are likely to commit an incoming government; make significant appointments; or enter into significant contracts or undertakings.</p>
<p>Deciding whether a policy is major or an appointment or contract is significant is a matter of judgement. There are no hard and fast rules. Factors include whether or not it is a routine or contentious matter, whether it commits government resources, whether it involves large amounts of money, the length of any commitment and whether or not it can easily be reversed. </p>
<p>If circumstances arise where a major decision has to be made during the caretaker period (for example about whether to commit Australian troops to military action or whether to provide emergency relief to deal with a natural disaster), it is customary for the government to consult the Opposition to try to find a mutually agreed position.</p>
<h2>What are the consequences of a breach of the caretaker conventions?</h2>
<p>The caretaker conventions are just conventions. They are not law and are therefore not legally binding limits on the powers of the government. Ministers still have the formal power to enter into contracts and make decisions as long as they continue to hold office. There are therefore no legal grounds to challenge the validity of contracts or appointments simply because they are made during the caretaker period.</p>
<p>There is a possibility (albeit a remote one) that the governor-general could refuse to act upon advice (for instance, to make an appointment) during the caretaker period, or defer any action until after the caretaker period was over, if that advice involved a serious breach of the caretaker conventions. In constitutional terms, this would be because ministers are not responsible to parliament during the caretaker period, and therefore are not the “responsible advisers” of the governor-general. </p>
<p>For example, in Canada in 1896, after the Tupper government had lost the election but before a new government was sworn-in, prime minister Charles Tupper advised the governor-general to appoint a number of senators and judges. The governor-general refused and left it to the new government to advise upon filling the places. Equally, South Australian premier Don Dunstan sought the appointment of a new governor days before the election in 1968. However, the appointment was deferred until after the election, and the incoming government decided to appoint someone else.</p>
<h2>What about Manus Island?</h2>
<p>The Memorandum of Understanding with PNG is a borderline caretaker convention issue. It was reportedly entered into by Australia’s representative before 5:30pm on August 5 when parliament was dissolved, but was not executed by the PNG government until afterwards. </p>
<p>Given that the issue is when the decision of the Commonwealth government was actually made - rather than the decision of the PNG government - it would appear to have been made and formally executed before the caretaker period commenced. Hence it would appear not to be a breach of the conventions, even though it came very close to the line. Even if it had crossed the line, this would not be grounds for a legal challenge as it would only have breached a convention - not the law. Any consequences would be political.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/16817/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anne Twomey receives funding from the ARC and occasionally does consultancy work for governments and inter-governmental organisations.</span></em></p>The Coalition has raised concerns that the Memorandum of Understanding with Papua New Guinea over the Manus Island asylum seeker processing deal was entered into after the caretaker conventions commenced…Anne Twomey, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/92392012-09-08T23:27:25Z2012-09-08T23:27:25ZThe Romney calculation: better to be disappointed than damned<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/15104/original/gnjvq55h-1346895096.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Can Mitt Romney form a bond with the American people?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Erik S Lesser</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>After the success of the Democratic National Convention, with its barnstorming speeches from former President Bill Clinton and First Lady Michelle Obama, Mitt Romney’s performance at his convention can be considered more closely</p>
<p>In his acceptance speech, Romney made his pitch to swing voters by claiming that if they feel disappointed then it is time for a new US president. </p>
<p>In marketing terms this is a pretty savvy line. However, the problem for Romney is that the large contingent of disappointed Obama supporters simply aren’t that taken by the former Governor of Massachusetts.</p>
<p>Romney has two big problems: his personality and his policies. If you consider this a particularly harsh judgement, spend 40 minutes watching his acceptance speech. </p>
<p>The speech largely attempts to address a number of gaps: Romney’s likeability gap in the polls compared with Obama, his empathy gap in the same polls and his party’s significant gender gap (women voters in America are increasingly turning against the Republican party). He also needed to address his biography gap (his reluctance to talk about his past). By the time he finished dealing with his credibility in his convention speech, there was little time left for policies. </p>
<p>Romney’s life and family look picture perfect. That’s not necessarily a positive for him: it can make him seem like the Hollywood version of an American president, reinforcing the view that Romney is a hollow man. These credibility gaps are hard to overcome because they stem from Romney’s unwillingness to talk about two central elements of his character – his Mormon faith and his business career. </p>
<p>Mormons are generally reluctant to talk about their personal lives and the inner workings of their church, as this is discouraged by Mormon leaders. Surveys show that non-Mormons are suspicious of the religion. Many Christians don’t consider it a Christian religion and many non-believers think it to be especially weird. </p>
<p>Americans do consider Mormons to be hard working, successful and patriotic but many won’t vote for a Mormon with polls clearly showing that a Mormon candidate would face more discrimination from voters than someone from an African-American background. As a result Romney keeps quiet about his faith.</p>
<p>The most repeated cliché about Romney is that he is risk adverse. However, a career as a venture capitalist isn’t exactly punching a clock in a life time guaranteed job. Bain Capital, the firm Romney co-founded and led from 1984 to 2002, took many risks with other people’s money, businesses and jobs but, conversely, Romney and his partners were very good at what they did and earned millions to prove this. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, Bain’s practice of picking winners and losers often left a trail of destruction. If things worked out it created jobs and helped expand businesses; when things didn’t go well companies like the KB Toys chain were saddled with debts that Bain had borrowed with little direct liability. The bankruptcy of some of Bain’s acquisitions has created many unhappy former employees who have featured in rival Republican and Democrat ads this year. So it is risky for Romney to talk about his business career, especially in a time of high unemployment and when high flying financial companies are still (not unfairly) blamed for America’s ongoing economic woes. </p>
<p>The Obama campaign will therefore argue that Romney is a corporate raider who is committed to bringing back the bad economic ideas of George W. Bush whose legacy was the 2008 financial crisis and its fallout. Is Obama any better? Surprisingly for such a charismatic speaker, Obama has his own empathy problem. This logical decision maker is often seen as no longer cool but just cold and not really understanding of the public’s pain. Obama’s style has a certain aloofness that he has worked at overcoming since his party’s shellacking in the 2010 mid-term elections. </p>
<p>Romney’s convention speech has been criticised by Obama in recent days for being light on policy; if you make that charge you need to have your own ideas and policy achievements to promote. What are these likely to be? Obama will talk up killing bin Laden, ending the war in Iraq and recently starting to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. These were topics Romney’s speech almost entirely avoided, making this the first time in a generation of presidential elections that a Democrat is more trusted with foreign policy than a Republican. </p>
<p>Unfortunately for Obama, the election will be won or lost almost entirely on domestic issues and this means at this week’s convention he will attempt to make the election as much as possible about Romney, not about the troubled US economy. However, he cannot avoid talking about what he has done to save the economy from being worse and what his administration has done to make it better. </p>
<p>He will promise growth and jobs in the years ahead; and argue the signs of progress can be seen. Obama can point out that Romney’s ideas might well increase unemployment but his problem is his own administration’s less than impressive record on creating jobs and economic growth. </p>
<p>Clearly there is only so much a president can do, but that message is not one the public is particularly interested in hearing. </p>
<p>This means Obama will be reduced to changing his 2008 message of hope and change to one in 2012 that evokes hope and fear of what a Republican presidency will do. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/9239/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brendon O'Connor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>After the success of the Democratic National Convention, with its barnstorming speeches from former President Bill Clinton and First Lady Michelle Obama, Mitt Romney’s performance at his convention can…Brendon O'Connor, Associate Professor in American Politics at the United States Studies Centre, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.