tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/ministers-45511/articlesMinisters – The Conversation2023-07-27T12:26:11Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2079532023-07-27T12:26:11Z2023-07-27T12:26:11ZJust about anybody in America can officiate a wedding, thanks to the internet – and one determined preacher<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539099/original/file-20230724-12442-v5wcun.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2121%2C1409&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Who did the honors: clergy, a justice of the peace or just a friend? More and more weddings are performed by someone ordained online.
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/happy-groom-piggybacking-bride-in-vineyard-royalty-free-image/1445187947?phrase=wedding&adppopup=true">Klaus Vedfelt/DigitalVision via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Wedding season is here again, and my calendar is filling up – not just as a guest.</p>
<p>Over the past 15 years, I have officiated over 20 weddings for friends and family, plus nearly 200 more as a part-time professional wedding officiant. These weddings have ranged from simple elopements to fancy ceremonies before hundreds of guests. They have taken place at farms, beaches, mountaintops, hotels, wineries and warehouses – but never at a church. They have been secular, spiritual, religious and interfaith.</p>
<p>I became a nominal minister through the website of <a href="https://www.ulc.org/">the Universal Life Church</a>, a nondenominational church that offers free, lifelong ordination to anyone, regardless of their beliefs. <a href="https://www.universalchurch.org/about-us#:%7E:text=Since%20our%20founding%2C%20we%20have,regardless%20of%20religion%20or%20background.">More than 20 million people</a> have been ordained so far. Just type in your name, email and mailing address and you will receive confirmation of your new status as a clergyperson, able to perform any legal marriage. You can adopt any religious title you please or none at all.</p>
<p>In the U.S., many, if not most, weddings today are officiated <a href="https://www.npr.org/2010/06/27/126426016/more-couples-have-friends-perform-wedding">by a friend</a> or <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/style/noticed-need-a-minister-how-about-your-brother.html">relative of the couple</a> rather than a traditional clergyperson or civil official authorized to perform the ceremony. According to the wedding planning website The Knot, 51% of couples in 2020 <a href="https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-religion-weddings-4fcbe095c77babeb79fc2464d5af0574">had a friend or family member officiate their wedding</a>, up from 37% in 2015. Though there are multiple ways for a layperson to get ordained, the <a href="https://www.ulc.org/">Universal Life Church</a> is most popular.</p>
<p>When two friends whom I had introduced to each other asked me to officiate their wedding back in 2008, I was touched and honored. Each experience of performing a wedding for friends or family has moved me deeply. Since I’m <a href="https://www.cappscenter.ucsb.edu/people/dusty-hoesly">a scholar of religion in contemporary America</a>, they also piqued my interest in what <a href="https://www.livescience.com/56094-friends-family-officiate-weddings.html">this trend</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110458657-013">says about religion and wedding rituals today</a> – questions that sparked <a href="https://doi.org/10.5334/snr.be">my subsequent research on the ULC</a>. </p>
<h2>Mail-order ministry</h2>
<p>The Universal Life Church was founded in 1959 in Modesto, California, by <a href="http://www.ulchq.com/founder.htm">Kirby J. Hensley</a>, an itinerant minister from North Carolina who could not read or write yet created Baptist and Pentecostal congregations across America.</p>
<p>Hensley’s religious views <a href="https://www.worldcat.org/title/1036791669?oclcNum=1036791669">were hard to categorize</a>, and the congregations that he formed kicked him out when disagreements arose. So he wanted to found a church where anyone could believe, teach and practice whatever they wanted, free of constraints imposed by religious or government authorities. The ULC’s only doctrine is <a href="https://store.ulc.net/aboutus.asp">to “do that which is right</a>,” which each person can define for themselves.</p>
<p>Hensley offered free mail-order ordinations and soon began mass ordinations at spiritual conventions and college campuses, where he was a popular speaker. Classified ads in the magazines Rolling Stone and Fate helped grow the church’s popularity, as did a flurry of news reports.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539409/original/file-20230726-29-hdbd0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A black and white photograph shows a balding man giving a talk while wearing glasses, a suit and a polka-dot tie." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539409/original/file-20230726-29-hdbd0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539409/original/file-20230726-29-hdbd0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539409/original/file-20230726-29-hdbd0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539409/original/file-20230726-29-hdbd0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539409/original/file-20230726-29-hdbd0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539409/original/file-20230726-29-hdbd0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539409/original/file-20230726-29-hdbd0d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Rev. Kirby Hensley, photographed in 1986.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-rev-kirby-hensley-has-ordained-more-than-13-million-news-photo/837081604?adppopup=true">Denver Post via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Most people got ordained as a lark: after all, why not? Others felt a spiritual calling. Ordination also appealed to young men hoping that a ministerial credential could help them <a href="https://wrldrels.org/2016/10/08/universal-life-church/">avoid the Vietnam War draft</a>. Some became ministers, created their own churches chartered under the ULC and claimed <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/20/us/irs-is-challenging-mail-order-pastors.html">income and property tax exemptions</a>. In 1995, the church began offering ordination online. </p>
<p>After Hensley’s death in 1999, his wife, Lida, took over. Since her death in 2006, their son Andre <a href="https://amp.modbee.com/living/article3118424.html">has led the church</a>, which <a href="https://www.ulchq.com/">still meets weekly</a> in a church building in Modesto, California. </p>
<p>However, most people <a href="https://getordained.org/">seeking ordination</a> online today wind up using an offshoot of the Universal Life Church, not <a href="https://www.ulchq.com/">the original website</a>. </p>
<p>In 2006, <a href="https://www.themonastery.org/">the Universal Life Church Monastery</a> based in Seattle <a href="https://www.modbee.com/living/article3118424.html">split off from the rest of the ULC</a> under the leadership of minister George Freeman. The ULC Monastery’s websites now dominate the online ordination business, claiming to receive <a href="https://www.marketplace.org/2015/02/05/how-online-minister-ordination-mills-work-or-dont/">1,000 requests each day</a>.</p>
<h2>My wedding, my way</h2>
<p>The ULC is most famous for ordaining people to officiate weddings for friends and relatives. Couples want unique, <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/04/more-couples-having-friends-officiate-their-weddings/586750/">customized ceremonies</a> that reflect their values and beliefs. They want their weddings performed <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/fashion/weddings/a-word-from-your-officiant-for-better-or-worse.html">by someone they know</a>, trust and care about and who will deliver a ceremony tailored to them. Typically, they want a nonreligious wedding.</p>
<p>These desires reflect two key trends in the wedding industry and in American religion: <a href="https://www.corpmagazine.com/features/cover-stories/modern-weddings-are-more-personalized-than-ever-say-bridal-consultants/">personalization</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/684202">secularization</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539412/original/file-20230726-29-r5g1qw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A woman in a teal dress uses a silver cord to bind the hands of a person in a white dress and a person in a blue suit, who face each other." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539412/original/file-20230726-29-r5g1qw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539412/original/file-20230726-29-r5g1qw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539412/original/file-20230726-29-r5g1qw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539412/original/file-20230726-29-r5g1qw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539412/original/file-20230726-29-r5g1qw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539412/original/file-20230726-29-r5g1qw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539412/original/file-20230726-29-r5g1qw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Tying the knot – literally.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/traditional-handfasting-ceremony-during-the-wedding-royalty-free-image/1438085024?phrase=wedding+vows&adppopup=true">Wirestock/iStock via Getty Images Plus</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>With 29% of Americans reporting <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/12/14/about-three-in-ten-u-s-adults-are-now-religiously-unaffiliated/">no religious affiliation</a>, <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/">up from 7% in the 1990s</a>, fewer couples identify with any religion, and far fewer belong to a congregation.</p>
<p>Most of these couples want a secular or spiritual officiant who reflects their beliefs and who will help them tailor the ceremony to their interests and values. And while these couples could have secular civil ceremonies at city hall, those are usually not personalized and the officiant is a stranger.</p>
<p>Most of the couples who use an online-ordained officiant say they and their weddings are nonreligious. However, they use the ULC’s religious status to ensure the legal validity of their marriages, showing how blurry <a href="https://doi.org/10.5334/snr.be">the line between secular and religious</a> can be in America today.</p>
<p>The ULC has transformed not only how people get married, but also who can get married. The church has authorized same-sex weddings since at least 1971, when Kirby Hensley <a href="https://www.worldcat.org/title/1036791669?oclcNum=1036791669">presided over a wedding of two women</a>. According to my research, Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556">2015 Supreme Court</a> case that <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-day-in-court-for-jim-obergefell-the-face-of-the-historic-gay-marriage-case/2015/04/28/99a00bdc-eda5-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html">legalized same-sex marriage nationally</a>, was <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/how-jim-obergefell-became-the-face-of-the-supreme-court-gay-marriage-case/2015/04/06/3740433c-d958-11e4-b3f2-607bd612aeac_story.html">married</a> to his late partner John Arthur by Arthur’s aunt, who was ordained by the ULC for the occasion.</p>
<p>The church’s <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20141219074338/http:/kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-titles/religion/11097/universal-life-church-ordained/">six-decade history</a> reflects major, long-term transformations in American society. While the ULC often serves as a religion of convenience, it has allowed many spiritual and secular people to practice what is sacred to them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207953/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dusty Hoesly does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A professor who has researched the Universal Life Church unpacks why many couples now prefer to hand-pick loved ones to perform their ceremonies.Dusty Hoesly, Postdoctoral Researcher in Religious Studies, University of California, Santa BarbaraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1500482020-11-23T22:00:08Z2020-11-23T22:00:08ZIn the 1620s, Plymouth Plantation had its own #MeToo moment<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/370664/original/file-20201122-15-1cjscya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1271%2C35%2C3520%2C2629&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Maids, who invariably lived with their employers, were especially vulnerable.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/an-unidentified-historical-re-enactor-sweeps-the-floor-of-news-photo/1190024862?adppopup=true">Brownie Harris/Corbis via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the many celebrations, reflections and histories of Plymouth colony, the settlement’s gender dynamics often get short shrift.</p>
<p>But not unlike today, men possessed power and privilege, women feared voicing their views and experiences, and the authorities debated how to respond to accusations of impropriety.</p>
<p>Original writings about the first New England settlement that I researched while writing my new book, “<a href="https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674238510">The World of Plymouth Plantation</a>,” reveal that Plymouth dealt with sexual assault allegations in the early days of the colony.</p>
<p>In this one incident, a man named <a href="https://www.plimoth.org/sites/default/files/media/pdf/lyford_john.pdf">John Lyford</a> was found guilty of rape in Ireland and driven out of his community. This left him free to take his predatory ways to another place: Plymouth Plantation.</p>
<h2>A new settler arrives</h2>
<p>Much of what historians know about Lyford is contained in the key text about Plymouth, settler William Bradford’s handwritten account, <a href="https://shop.americanancestors.org/products/of-plimoth-plantation?pass-through=true">“Of Plimoth Plantation</a>.”</p>
<p>Lyford, an out-of-work Oxford graduate, arrived in Plymouth in 1622 with his family and servants. Their passage had been funded by the <a href="https://archive.org/details/debtshopefuldesp00mcin/page/n5/mode/2up">approximately 70 investors in England</a> who backed the Plymouth settlement.</p>
<p>Little was known of Lyford’s past other than the fact that he had held a position as minister to a Protestant church in Ireland. Nonetheless, he had high hopes for his new life in the New World: He expected to be employed as the community’s teacher and sought to one day be named the church’s minister. </p>
<p>In Plymouth, the church accepted Lyford as a member. At the time, he gave a seemingly heartfelt, if vague, confession of his sins, his desire for forgiveness and his wish to be received into the religious community. Bradford, who was present for the confession, <a href="https://shop.americanancestors.org/products/of-plimoth-plantation?pass-through=true">wrote of how Lyford</a> made “an acknowledgment of his former disorderly walking, and his being Entangled with many corruptions, which had been a burthen to his conscience.” </p>
<p>Despite this auspicious beginning, Lyford was soon at odds with the settlement’s leaders. Because the church didn’t ultimately choose him as its minister, he decided to create a rival congregation that he could lead. He also wrote letters to the settlement’s investors criticizing the undertaking. Lyford depicted the leadership as hostile to the Church of England, intolerant of the religious views of others and bent on retaining power at any cost. </p>
<p>As a result of his complaints, a hearing in England took place in 1625 to consider the accusations. Investors, representatives of both Lyford and the colony, and an audience made up of various members of the public attended.</p>
<p>Afterwards, most investors withdrew their support of the colony. Why they did so is unclear. Either they were truly outraged at Lyford’s revelations or they were happy to have an excuse to stop sending money to the unprofitable enterprise. </p>
<p>But the outcome for Plymouth might have been much worse had Lyford’s past not caught up with him. </p>
<h2>A predator is unmasked</h2>
<p>Plymouth settler <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-edward-winslow-plymouth-hero-thanksgiving-180961174/">Edward Winslow</a>, who represented Plymouth during the hearing in England, discovered that Lyford had a dirty secret. </p>
<p>From men friendly to Plymouth who were present, he learned that Lyford had lost his post in Ireland because of a sexual assault. One of Lyford’s parishioners had approached him for advice about his prospective bride, and he asked the minister if he thought her a worthy wife for a godly man. Lyford offered to meet with this woman – unnamed in the records – to assess her worthiness. During the private interview, he reportedly raped her. Afterward, he advised her prospective husband to wed her. </p>
<p>Once the couple was married, the bride revealed the minister’s attack, presumably to her husband, who then denounced Lyford. The church fired Lyford, and he slunk out of Ireland hoping to start anew. </p>
<p>But Lyford had more than this one incident to hide. While embroiled in his fight with the Plymouth leaders, his wife, Sarah, told her new friends that he routinely assaulted their maids. She confided that he would “meddle with them” as they slept at the foot of the couple’s bed. Maids, being young, unmarried serving women who lived in their employers’ households, were vulnerable, <a href="https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674238510">and colonial law courts took a dim view of anyone who attacked them</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Women and men in period clothing hold hands as they dance in a circle." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/370663/original/file-20201122-17-hz1ko.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=4%2C8%2C2991%2C2389&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/370663/original/file-20201122-17-hz1ko.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/370663/original/file-20201122-17-hz1ko.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/370663/original/file-20201122-17-hz1ko.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/370663/original/file-20201122-17-hz1ko.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=611&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/370663/original/file-20201122-17-hz1ko.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=611&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/370663/original/file-20201122-17-hz1ko.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=611&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">People in period clothing dance during a reenactment of life in Plymouth Plantation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/people-in-period-clothing-dance-during-an-reunion-dinner-of-news-photo/538831584?adppopup=true">John Blanding/The Boston Globe via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In addition, Sarah reported that Lyford lied to her before they married, denying rumors that he had fathered an illegitimate child. After they married – and she could not object because <a href="https://www.library.hbs.edu/hc/wes/collections/women_law/">as a wife she was bound to obey her husband</a> – he brought the child into their household to live. </p>
<p>Lyford was far from being what Plymouth churchgoers would consider appropriate clergyman material; he was a rapist and a liar. Church members were grateful that they had not made him their leader, and, for this and other objectionable behavior, he was exiled from the settlement. </p>
<h2>#MeToo, then and now</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/08/metoo-around-the-world/?arc404=true">Today’s #MeToo movement</a> centers on women coming forward about violence they’ve been subjected to. They speak out about attacks by men who use their position of power to demean and assault them. </p>
<p>In the 17th century, women in Ireland, England and Plymouth <a href="https://nyupress.org/9780814797891/sex-without-consent/">rarely went public with their troubles</a>. But neither were they entirely silent. </p>
<p>The unnamed woman in Ireland told her husband what the minister had done, quite possibly after he found that she was not a virgin on their wedding night. </p>
<p>Sarah Lyford, after years of putting up with her spouse, finally described his predatory ways to her friends and to the Plymouth church’s deacon. The serving women whom Lyford assaulted remained silent, a course that was not unusual for girls and women caught in this situation, unless pregnancy forced them to reveal the truth. </p>
<p>Men in Ireland and Plymouth found Lyford’s vile acts especially shocking because he was supposed to be a man of God. The men in the Irish church acted decisively once his rape was revealed. They did not – <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/predator-priests-shuffled-around-globe/">as we sometimes see modern-day churches do</a> – accept his contrition and keep him on in his post. Instead, they swiftly fired him. The men of Plymouth wanted to be rid of Lyford for many reasons; in the end, they were glad that his reprehensible sexual assaults discredited him decisively.</p>
<p>In the case of Lyford, powerful men turned on a sexual predator and supported the women whom he wronged. In this case, his victims gained some justice. </p>
<p>But it’s also a reminder that then – as now – men’s support for the cause is often required to hold perpetrators of sexual assault to account. </p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/150048/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Carla Gardina Pestana does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>An ex-minister named John Lyford arrived at the nascent colony hoping for a fresh start. But he couldn’t escape his past.Carla Gardina Pestana, Professor and Joyce Appleby Endowed Chair of America in the World, University of California, Los AngelesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1402972020-06-10T12:34:11Z2020-06-10T12:34:11ZBlack British citizens want more than complacency from this government<p>As Black Lives Matter protests spread, the UK health secretary, Matt Hancock, was recently taken to task about the lack of diversity in the government of prime minister, Boris Johnson. When pressed about the lack of black cabinet ministers, Hancock said that British Asian politicians currently occupy two of the four great offices of state – Priti Patel, home secretary and Rishi Sunak, chancellor of the exchequer.</p>
<p>When his interviewer pointed out that she had asked specifically about black cabinet members, not Asian cabinet members, Hancock failed to acknowledge that the absence of black MPs at the top level was a problem, implying that the current representation in the cabinet is enough.</p>
<p>It’s true that the 2019 parliament is Britain’s most diverse parliament ever. There are now 65 ethnic minority MPs, which equates to 10% of the House of Commons. And the 2010 election was a watershed moment for the representation of ethnic minorities in the Conservative Party. Prior to this, the Labour Party had a virtual monopoly on the representation of ethnic minorities in the House of Commons. </p>
<p>The 2010 general election saw a <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/olympic-britain/parliament-and-elections/representatives-of-society/">huge increase in the number of ethnic minority MPs</a> in the Conservative Party – from two to 11. The Conservative Party now has 22 minority ethnic MPs. This happened after a concerted effort to promote more ethnic minority candidates in an attempt to modernise the party and reach out to ethnic minority voters.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1269890654982639618"}"></div></p>
<p>But despite this progress, ethnic minorities still only make up around 6% of the Conservatives’ 365 MPs. Ethnic minorities constituted 13% of the British population <a href="https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/national-and-regional-populations/population-of-england-and-wales/latest">at the last census</a> – and that was nine years ago. So, complacency is not an option. And yet it was hard not to hear complacency from Hancock. This complacency undermines the progress the Conservatives have made in diversifying the party over the past ten years.</p>
<p>When pushed on his comments about the lack of diversity in the cabinet, the health secretary said what was more important is that it has “diversity of thought”. But diversity of thought is not akin to actual diversity.</p>
<h2>Parliament and government</h2>
<p>The absence of ethnic minorities from deliberative bodies and the executive undermines the quality of democracy. This is because it often means that the issues that concern ethnic minority voters are left off the political agenda.</p>
<p>Having a truly representative parliament means more views can be included in the deliberative process. Labour’s David Lammy, for example, has specifically cited his Caribbean heritage as a driving force behind his work to hold the last government to account over its treatment of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/windrush-generation-the-history-of-unbelonging-95021">Windrush generation</a>. </p>
<p>And in government, cabinet ministers play a powerful role in decision making. Sunak, as chancellor, could theoretically formulate the government’s fiscal or monetary policy while taking into account the interests of marginalised groups such as ethnic minorities.</p>
<p>The “diversity of thought” Hancock spoke of has not led successive Conservative governments to emphasise the interests of black Britons. These governments have, instead, appeared committed to racially repressive policies that have had a detrimental effect on the lives of black people in the UK.</p>
<p>David Cameron and Theresa May’s governments presided over austerity throughout their premierships, despite <a href="https://www.runnymedetrust.org/blog/austerity-is-hitting-black-and-asian-women-hardest">evidence</a> that black women in the UK were being disproportionately affected by cuts.</p>
<p>Alarmingly, despite the presence of Sunak and Patel in key posts, this government has continued the <a href="https://theconversation.com/hostile-environment-the-uk-governments-draconian-immigration-policy-explained-95460">hostile environment</a> policy that created the <a href="https://theconversation.com/windrush-generation-latest-to-be-stripped-of-their-rights-in-the-name-of-migration-control-95158">Windrush scandal</a> in the first place. This scandal is perhaps the most flagrant recent example of the state’s disregard for black lives. Hundreds of British Caribbeans have been wrongly deported or denied access to key services such as healthcare after being incorrectly deemed illegal migrants. The government has not repealed the <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/874022/6.5577_HO_Windrush_Lessons_Learned_Review_WEB_v2.pdf">legislation that led to this scandal</a>. </p>
<h2>‘Colour-blind’ party</h2>
<p>Conservatives in particular should do some thinking about how their core political tenets are preventing the party from addressing the inequalities faced by black people. </p>
<p>The Conservative Party has typically adopted a colour-blind approach. But this overlooks the salient role race and racism play in shaping the lives of ethnic minorities. This is best exemplified by the 1983 Conservative poster which adopted the slogan <a href="http://blogs.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/161/2010/03/labour-says-he-27s-black-1983.jpg">“Labour say he’s black, Tories say he is British”</a>. Ethnic minority Conservative politicians have also been keen to downplay their race, saying they don’t view it as a significant feature of their identity. </p>
<p>There has, in recent times, been a slight rhetorical shift away from the colour-blind approach. Some ethnic minority MPs, including Sunak and Sajid Javid, his predecessor as chancellor, have stated that racism is a problem, for example. But this is usually caveated by the claim that Britain is not racist. Therein lies the problem – the Conservatives’ acknowledgement of racism is undermined by an attempt to minimise its pervasiveness.</p>
<p>In his bid to modernise the party, Cameron made an open commitment to tackling racial discrimination. But his support for ethnic minority candidates was not backed up with any actual policies. May has a similar record. Her government commissioned the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/race-disparity-audit">Race Disparity Audit</a> in 2017, but failed to act on the findings, which highlighted some of the inequalities faced by ethnic minorities in the UK.</p>
<p>Johnson, much like his predecessors, has stressed the importance of tackling racism but is yet to offer any policy commitments that would address racism in the UK.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6u6nPRC8gAo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Johnson’s statement on the Black Lives Matter protests.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Another one of the tenets of conservatism is individualism – the idea that anyone can be successful as long as they apply themselves. But individualism ignores the systemic barriers faced by historically marginalised groups across society. The presence of a black politician in parliament, therefore, is not a guarantee that they will promote the interests of the black community if they are committed to the politics of individualism and not social justice.</p>
<p>The tone of the Black Lives Matter protests suggests that there is a growing disillusionment with formal politics and democratic procedures among black people in the UK. Several cabinet members, including Johnson, have gone on record to state that “Black Lives Matter”. If the government really wants to show that they value black lives, they must move beyond platitudes and place anti-racism at the core of their politics.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/140297/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Bankole 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>Matt Hancock’s assertion that the cabinet has ‘diversity of thought’ is not enough to address the sense of disillusionment being expressed on the streets of the UK.Michael Bankole, PhD Candidate, Department of Political Economy, King's College LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1317372020-02-13T16:26:33Z2020-02-13T16:26:33ZBoris Johnson’s cabinet reshuffle: what you need to know<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/315101/original/file-20200212-61912-fl5y0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=89%2C74%2C4902%2C3248&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Who's in and who's out?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/august-21-2019-berlin-british-primne-1490930162">360b/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Boris Johnson, the UK prime minister, has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/feb/13/politics-live-cabinet-reshuffle-set-to-get-underway-live-news">reshuffled his cabinet</a>. But among all the sackings and appointments, the big news of the day was Sajid Javid’s resignation as chancellor of the exchequer. Javid was <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-51487171?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central&ns_campaign=bbc_politics">reportedly told by the prime minister</a> that “he had to fire all his special advisers and replace them with No 10 special advisers to make it one team”, which he refused to do, instead choosing to resign. He has been replaced by his deputy, Rishi Sunak. </p>
<p>This is a very swift promotion for Sunak and is a role that will immediately come with a lot of work given the budget is only four weeks away. This replacement is seen by many as the prime minister’s move to take more <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/5ebfb84e-4e5a-11ea-95a0-43d18ec715f5">control of economic policy</a>. And, by replacing a chancellor who had, at times, different views to him, Johnson now has someone with limited political and cabinet experience at No 11 – a move that has caused former Tory MP David Gauke to take to Twitter to warn Whitehall to remember the importance of its independence. He said: “the chancellor and the Treasury … has to be strong enough to say ‘No’ to the PM or anyone else”.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1227941502086778880"}"></div></p>
<p>Research further supports the importance of a strong chancellor. In <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/fiscal-governance-in-europe/108471377212D8B63DD449C59243D898">cross-country studies</a> that have looked at the role of finance ministers, it has been found that strong ministers keep lower levels of debt and deficit and are able to <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/ideologues-partisans-and-loyalists-9780198755715?cc=gb&lang=en&">block rises in social welfare spending</a>.</p>
<h2>Why the reshuffle?</h2>
<p>Typically, prime ministers reshuffle when their <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/3598639?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents">popularity goes down and when they cannot effectively control</a> their cabinet or their backbench. So the timing of this reshuffle may seem unusual as it comes only two months after the formation of a new government from a prime minister who enjoys <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Boris_Johnson">high approval ratings</a> and a large parliamentary majority. </p>
<p>Yet it’s not as abnormal as it seems given that the prime minister kept his team of ministers after December’s election – so this is effectively his first opportunity for a post-electoral reshuffle. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/315252/original/file-20200213-10980-9i3nnb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/315252/original/file-20200213-10980-9i3nnb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/315252/original/file-20200213-10980-9i3nnb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/315252/original/file-20200213-10980-9i3nnb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/315252/original/file-20200213-10980-9i3nnb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/315252/original/file-20200213-10980-9i3nnb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/315252/original/file-20200213-10980-9i3nnb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A smiling Michael Gove arrives at Downing Street to discover his fate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.paimages.co.uk/search-results/fluid/?q=cabinet%20reshuffle&amber_border=0&category=A,S,E&fields_0=all&fields_1=all&green_border=1&imagesonly=1&orientation=both&red_border=0&text=cabinet%20reshuffle&words_0=all&words_1=all">Stefan Rousseau/PA Wire/PA Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The profile of cabinet ministers reflects the PM’s policy priorities.
Johnson’s July 2019 cabinet sent a very clear message: he was determined to deliver Brexit, and accordingly he appointed ministers with strong pro-Brexit stances. Now that the UK has technically left the European Union, it was expected that he would want to replace some of these ministers with ministers who share his policy vision beyond Brexit. Nonetheless, it appears Brexit is still a prominent issue for Johnson as a lot of high-profile appointments include vocal supporters of Brexit. </p>
<p>MPs’ policy expertise, professional background, political experience and past performance <a href="https://www.crcpress.com/The-Selection-of-Ministers-in-Europe-Hiring-and-Firing/Dowding-Dumont/p/book/9781138989962">are all factors that matter</a> when deciding who to appoint. </p>
<p>Indeed, Theresa Villiers is out as environment secretary, replaced by George Eustice MP for Camborne and Redruth in Cornwall. This appointment could have significant consequences for the country’s environmental policy as <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/ideologues-partisans-and-loyalists-9780198755715?cc=gb&lang=en&">evidence suggests</a> that the people that prime ministers appoint to ministerial portfolios matter for policy outcomes. Although Eustice has policy experience as a former minister for agriculture, his public profile speaks louder of his opposition to the EU’s agricultural policy than of his environmental record. </p>
<h2>Friends with political goals</h2>
<p>Johnson is faced with a very different party and country than in July 2019. He has a large parliamentary majority and a parliamentary group that is more unified than before the December elections. This allows him to appoint ministers who are ideologically close to him without worrying too much about <a href="https://ejpr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1475-6765.12020">satisfying party factions</a>. </p>
<p>Policy objectives, however, are not the sole or the primary reason for reshuffles. Prime ministers seek to balance a number of important goals when they decide who to appoint to cabinet. And prime ministers often use cabinet appointments to reward their friends and those loyal to them.</p>
<p>Johnson clearly wants to send a strong signal that he values loyalty above everything else. Anne-Marie Trevelyan, for example, has been rewarded with a more senior appointment – from minister for the armed forces to secretary of state for international development. Similarly Oliver Dowden has been promoted to culture secretary. Geoffrey Cox on the other hand has lost his job as attorney general for openly disagreeing with the PM over the parliament’s prorogation. </p>
<p>Reshuffles are also the <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/cabinet-reshuffles-and-ministerial-drift/42CAB523F2DE5019D5F50A0F1A6CF9F6">only way to fire ministers</a> who have drifted from the prime minister’s agenda or who openly disagree with the prime minister. Indeed, probably most of those who’ve been sacked were ministers who had stood up to the prime minister in cabinet meetings.</p>
<p>And of course, not all ministers are high performers. It’s the prime minister’s responsibility to replace low-performing ministers particularly in high-priority portfolios – and reshuffles offer than opportunity. </p>
<p>So of the ministers would have remained in post, such as international trade secretary Liz Truss, education secretary Gavin Williamson and health secretary Matt Hancock, it’s safe to say they have either performed sufficiently well and have avoided scandals. Or it could simply be they’ve been kept where they are because the prime minister considers their areas to be low priority where policy stability is expected – time will only tell.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/131737/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Despina Alexiadou 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>This is Boris Johnson’s first major cabinet reshuffle since the Conservatives’ general election victory.Despina Alexiadou, Chancellor’s Fellow at the School of Government and Public Policy, University of Strathclyde Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1181192019-05-31T04:36:00Z2019-05-31T04:36:00ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on Ken Wyatt’s appointment - and Labor’s frontbench<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6MrTaINXUwE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>University of Canberra Deputy Vice-Chancellor Geoff Crisp speaks with Michelle Grattan about the week in politics. They discuss the Coalition’s new ministry, including Indigenous Minister Ken Wyatt and Stuart Robert who will oversee the NDIS and service provision, what could happen with treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s tax package, and Labor’s frontbench and former leader Bill Shorten’s place in it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/118119/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan 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>Geoff Crisp speaks with Michelle Grattan about the week in politics.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1179092019-05-28T19:50:07Z2019-05-28T19:50:07ZInfographic: who’s who in the new Morrison ministry<p>As Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s ministry is sworn in today, we’re taking a closer look at the members of the newly revamped cabinet. </p>
<p>Some of the faces are new – Stuart Robert, for example, takes over the new portfolio overseeing the National Disability Insurance Scheme. And some of the portfolios have shifted, notably Sussan Ley replacing Melissa Price as environment minister.</p>
<p>We’ve asked our experts to appraise the performances of the ministers and highlight what could be the key challenges in their new roles.</p>
<p>In some cases, ministers hold more than one portfolio. To simplify the policy analysis, we’ve chosen a key policy area for which they’re responsible and asked our experts to analyse those.</p>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-409" class="tc-infographic" height="400px" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/409/3e383b8155fd6a829f391e02280e6276c27d4b57/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/117909/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Scott Morrison’s new ministry includes a few new faces and several new roles for familiar cabinet members. Our experts take a closer look at each portfolio.Emil Jeyaratnam, Data + Interactives Editor, The ConversationShelley Hepworth, Section Editor: Technology, The ConversationJustin Bergman, International Affairs EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/996082018-07-09T16:01:35Z2018-07-09T16:01:35ZTheresa May was right to reimpose collective ministerial responsibility – it’s the only way to govern<p>It lasted for 48 hours. Two days after Theresa May <a href="https://brexitcentral.com/theresa-may-selling-chequers-proposal-conservative-mps/">told Conservative ministers</a> that they must adhere to the convention of collective responsibility and support the agreed Brexit plan, the prime minister had to accept the resignation of her Brexit secretary, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44761056">David Davis</a>, and foreign secretary, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/09/boris-johnson-resigns-as-foreign-secretary-brexit">Boris Johnson</a>. </p>
<p>In his <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/davis-davis-resignation-letter-in-full-11430720">resignation letter</a>, Davis wrote that he did not support the new agreed strategy and was following the collective responsibility convention in resigning. </p>
<p>Collective responsibility only concerns ministers in government serving within the cabinet. Dating back to the 18th century, it is a constitutional convention which holds that members of the cabinet should support all governmental decisions. While it’s a convention rather than a legal requirement, ministers are nonetheless expected to show a “united front” for all government actions and policies.</p>
<p>In practice, this means that decisions taken by the cabinet are <a href="https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/RP04-82#fullreport">binding</a> on all its members. While a minister may disagree in private, they must still publicly support the agreed position. According to the <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60641/cabinet-manual.pdf">Cabinet Manual</a>, should a minister feel they cannot abide by the public “united front” requirement, then they must resign. </p>
<p>Perhaps one of the most <a href="https://www.indy100.com/article/everyone-should-listen-again-to-robin-cooks-resignation-speech-over-the-iraq-war--WJe4kxLv8BW">famous</a> examples of the convention in practice was the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/17/labour.uk">resignation of Robin Cook in 2003</a> as leader of the House of Commons for Tony Blair’s Labour government. Under the collective responsibility rules, Cook was unable to publicly speak out about his objections to the war in Iraq. Following the tenets of the convention, he resigned from his office, and spoke from the backbenches of his disagreement with the government’s position.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/T9CqiiI2Irg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Such a principled approach to collective responsibility saw Cook receive a standing ovation. Nonetheless, such resignations over not toeing government lines are rare, as more often than not individual ministers want to hold on to government office. </p>
<p>While it is largely up to the prime minister to enforce the convention, it is seen as more politically honourable – and better for the party – for a minister to resign when they want to speak out against the government’s collective position. </p>
<h2>Agreeing to differ</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60641/cabinet-manual.pdf">Cabinet Manual</a> makes it clear that collective responsibility applies in all instances, “save where it is explicitly set aside”. As the Labour prime minister James Callaghan <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-DSXshoO85gC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=I+certainly+think+that+the+doctrine+should+apply,+except+in+cases+where+I+announce+it+does+not.+callaghan&source=bl&ots=7FI3-TEbAF&sig=deLy4R5s-4f21t_9pmXT-OPKN-E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivusS89pHcAhWLSsAKHS2TBjwQ6AEIRzAC#v=onepage&q=I%20certainly%20think%20that%20the%20doctrine%20should%20apply%2C%20except%20in%20cases%20where%20I%20announce%20it%20does%20not.%20callaghan&f=false">remarked</a> in 1977: “I certainly think that the doctrine should apply, except in cases where I announce it does not.” </p>
<p>The suspension of collective responsibility – otherwise known as an “agreement to differ” – is rare. Within the UK, it has only been implemented on <a href="https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7755">six previous occasions</a> – ranging from the first on the issue of <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/tradeindustry/importexport/overview/freetrade/">tariff policy in 1932</a>, to proposals for <a href="https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/alternative-vote/">alternative voting systems during general elections</a> under the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-coalition-documentation">2010 coalition agreement</a>. </p>
<p>Both referendums pertaining to the European Union – the first in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/25/britains-1975-europe-referendum-what-was-it-like-last-time">1975 on UK membership of the European Economic Community</a>, and the second on the <a href="https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/collective-cabinet-responsibility-and-eu-referendum">2016 Brexit referendum</a> – carried a temporary suspension of collective responsibility on the specific issues. </p>
<p>Since David Cameron gave his cabinet freedom to differ over Brexit, there has been a progressive (and very public) weakening of cabinet collective responsibility. </p>
<p>Even before his resignation as foreign secretary, Johnson had <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-recording-trump-brexit-dinner-party-tory-theresa-may-a8388686.html">repeatedly criticised</a> the government’s approach to Brexit. The treasury minister, Liz Truss, has openly criticised <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/liz-truss-cabinet-brexit-tory-michael-gove-defence-spending-nhs-conservative-a8418761.html">“male macho” cabinet colleagues</a>. In particular, the perceived “hot air” coming out of the Department for the Environment – with the suggestion that <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-44618162/wood-burning-gove-liz-truss-fumes-at-cabinet-colleague">“wood burning Goves”</a> are trying to tell us how to live our lives. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9JlQ0WBQdQ8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Cameron only gave his ministers <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/05/eu-referendum-david-cameron-confirms-ministers-campaign-brexit">freedom to differ over Brexit</a>. However, reinstating collective responsibility has been a significant challenge for May’s administration. And she has now lost two ministers who could not adhere to it. </p>
<h2>Why it must now endure</h2>
<p>For May’s administration to survive, collective unity – alongside confidence and trust – is now needed. Remaining within the cabinet, and publicly speaking out against an agreed direction, weakens unity, causes confusion, and undermines the leadership of the prime minister.</p>
<p>The convention is crucial as it is the government that leads the policy and direction of the country. Its requirements are based on the foundations that unity is needed to deliver the government’s agenda, and projects stability, strength and leadership both domestically and overseas. </p>
<p>A united front among ministers is necessary for political stability. Without such, the lack of unity has consequences for the UK’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/10/strong-and-stable-leadership-could-theresa-mays-rhetorical-carpet-bombing-backfire">ability to negotiate with the EU</a>, while also carrying <a href="https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/summary-trade-after-brexit">economic and trade implications</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99608/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Clear 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>The UK has a constitutional convention of collective ministerial responsibility. Here’s why it matters – and must endure.Stephen Clear, Lecturer in Law, Bangor UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/937962018-04-10T02:02:00Z2018-04-10T02:02:00ZBanning MPs from private messaging apps is a simplistic response to a complex problem<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213785/original/file-20180409-114105-6xdhsa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Queensland's Ministerial Code now bans Ministers from using private email and messaging apps.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/rosario-argentina-november-8-2017-young-760414357?src=-ivKngq440KrCsessU7bsA-5-87">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Queensland updated its <a href="https://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/publications/categories/policies-and-codes/handbooks/ministerial-handbook/ethics/min-code.aspx">Ministerial Code of Conduct</a> last month, which reflects the state’s legislation regarding official accountability. The Code now <a href="http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2018/3/19/new-guidelines-for-ministerial-email-use">bans</a> Ministers from using private email and messaging apps, such as Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, <a href="https://theconversation.com/who-watches-the-watchers-when-the-watchers-use-wickr-48886">Wickr</a> and Snapchat, for ministerial business.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the question of whether government and law enforcement should have access to encrypted communications between citizens is currently the subject of a <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Law_Enforcement/NewandemergingICT">national inquiry</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-should-strengthen-its-privacy-laws-and-remove-exemptions-for-politicians-93717">Australia should strengthen its privacy laws and remove exemptions for politicians</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But simply banning politicians from using these apps altogether is a simplistic response to a complex problem – one that is difficult to enforce and easy to subvert. </p>
<p>It raises questions about the privacy of ministers, advisers, officials and their family members, and should be accompanied by a willingness to strengthen official accountability through positive administration of Freedom of Information (FOI) schemes. </p>
<h2>Digital messaging is part of life</h2>
<p>Digital messaging systems such as email and SMS are so embedded in public and private life that we take them for granted. We use them a lot. Some of these systems allow the dissemination of photos, videos and documents. They are useful. They are often inconveniently durable, and readily copied for sharing with unintended recipients.</p>
<p>On that basis executives, academics, mums, dads, celebrities and teenagers are turning to low-cost “private” messaging systems that <a href="https://privacy.org.au/2018/03/30/statement-to-the-parliamentary-joint-committee-on-law-enforcement/">encrypt</a> messages, or automatically erase them after reading. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/XfLAI/2/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="100%" height="380"></iframe>
<p>Use of such systems is not prohibited by Australian law. If you value your privacy, are dealing with commercially sensitive information, are engaged in an illegal activity, want to evade FOI obligations, or want some protection when whistleblowing or briefing a journalist “off the record”, these systems are attractive.</p>
<p>And their use is likely to increase in concert with the growing distrust of traditional messaging thanks to official overreach through mandatory <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-are-all-suspects-now-thanks-to-australias-data-retention-plans-38223">metadata</a> retention, and the privacy fears raised by the current Cambridge Analytica <a href="https://theconversation.com/cambridge-analytica-scandal-legitimate-researchers-using-facebook-data-could-be-collateral-damage-93600">imbroglio</a>.</p>
<h2>Why ban private messaging?</h2>
<p>Changes to the Queensland Code may have been triggered by former Queensland energy minister Mark Bailey’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-09/mark-bailey-in-hot-water-again-over-private-email-use/9529670">use and deletion of a private email account</a>. Even though he was cleared of any <a href="http://www.ccc.qld.gov.au/news-and-media/ccc-media-releases/no-criminal-action-relating-to-mark-baileys-email-account-22-september-2017">criminal</a> wrongdoing by the Crime and Corruption Commission, the investigation into his email use raised questions about government transparency.</p>
<p>Therefore, one reason for the ban is simply appearances. Ministers need to be seen to be accountable. Accountability erodes when people use non-official mechanisms for communications that should be findable under FOI or litigation. </p>
<p>An official message that disappears once read – just like the traditional post-it note that disappears off the file, or an unrecorded meeting in a coffee shop – makes a mockery of accountability. </p>
<h2>Will it work?</h2>
<p>One of the biggest problems is policing of the ban. Compliance with the Code is a matter of trust. Some people might ignore the Code and use private phones with private messaging capability. They might rely on family members and friends – “I just want to borrow your phone for a moment” – leaving no fingerprints for FOI. </p>
<p>The ban also provokes thought about deeper issues, such as whether politicians have a right to space in which they are not under the public or official gaze. Some people will be chilled by the thought that an invisible observer has the scope to hear or read expressions of affection, or mundane reminders to pick up some milk on the way home. Do we regard that erosion of privacy as “just part of the job”? </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/whatsapp-is-secure-and-ok-for-politicians-to-use-provided-simple-steps-are-followed-67101">WhatsApp is secure and OK for politicians to use, provided simple steps are followed</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Then there is the question of where to draw the line. Should the restriction extend only to MPs, or should it include all ministerial staffers, judges and mid-level officials? </p>
<p>And, of course, there are times when it is imperative that communications be protected. For example, the Premier and senior officials are strongly encouraged to use “secure lines” for discussions about law enforcement regarding terrorism, tax evasion and drug trafficking. </p>
<h2>A more positive approach to disclosure</h2>
<p>Queensland’s ban isn’t inherently good or bad. It is instead something that should be considered in terms of administration, rights and responsibilities. It should be explored by civil society advocates and other governments, such as <a href="https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/regulations/2014-546.pdf">NSW</a> and <a href="https://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/images/documents/dpc_resources/Governance/Vic_Code_of_Conduct_for_Ministers_and_Parl_Secs_Feb_2012.PDF">Victoria</a>, that are currently silent on the issue.</p>
<p>Accountability is an issue across Australia, and several governments – such as that in the <a href="http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/act-anticorruption-and-integrity-commission-should-include-police-begin-next-year-committee-20171031-gzbk7u.html">ACT</a> – are resisting establishment of well-resourced integrity watchdogs.</p>
<p>We can recall the history of corruption or perceived misbehaviour involving <a href="http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/hinze-russell-james-russ-15165">ministers</a>, senior officials, <a href="http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/farquhar-murray-frederick-18242">magistrates</a> and at least one very senior <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-20/lionel-murphy:-the-high-court-judge-and-the-scandal/9158316">judge</a>. </p>
<p>We can also recall ministerial and official resistance to accountability via FOI, epitomised by the national Public Service Commissioner’s <a href="http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/public-service/australian-public-service-commissioner-john-lloyd-says-foi-laws-mean-bureaucrats-dont-write-it-down-20151019-gkcird.html">denunciation</a> of FOI as “very pernicious”. We need to be practical and recognise that both privacy and accountability must be balanced.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-still-to-deliver-on-open-government-rhetoric-70263">Australia still to deliver on 'open government' rhetoric</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Queensland has previously set an example for Australia by making <a href="https://www.cabinet.qld.gov.au/ministers/diaries.aspx">ministerial appointment diaries</a> open for scrutiny. Such scrutiny was strongly <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-20/why-should-you-care-about-the-brandis-diaries/8369070">resisted</a> by national Attorney-General George Brandis, perhaps because sighting who he was meeting – and making inferences about that meeting’s influence on public policy – would be as disconcerting as knowing who he called.</p>
<p>We currently don’t have timely access to the diaries of all advisers and senior officials. We are unlikely to get that access. We will not get disclosure of who met whom at the various dinners where advocates pay a lot of money for a quiet word with a policymaker. Politicians need to heed public disquiet about opaque <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-27/tasmanian-politicians-urged-to-disclose-donations-before-vote/9486826">funding</a> of political parties. </p>
<p>As things stand, the Code in Queensland is likely to be disregarded.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/93796/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bruce Baer Arnold is a director of the Australian Privacy Foundation. This piece is independent of that affiliation. </span></em></p>The ban on Queensland Members of Parliament using encrypted messaging apps for government business should be accompanied by a willingness to strengthen official accountability across the board.Bruce Baer Arnold, Assistant Professor, School of Law, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/917442018-02-13T04:31:22Z2018-02-13T04:31:22ZThe Barnaby Joyce affair highlights Australia’s weak regulation of ministerial staffers<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/206089/original/file-20180213-58315-1i9gpqg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Barnaby Joyce has denied he breached ministerial standards with the employment of his partner, Vikki Campion.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-13/barnaby-joyce-upcoming-role-acting-pm-unsustainable-labor-says/9425426">continues to face questions</a> about the employment of his former media adviser – now current partner – Vicki Campion. Campion left Joyce’s office last year to take another ministerial adviser position with Resources Minister Matthew Canavan, and then with Nationals whip Damian Drum.</p>
<p>Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/no-breach-for-joyce-over-campion-jobs-as-she-wasn-t-his-partner-pm-s-office">has claimed</a> Joyce did not breach the <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/resource-centre/government/statement-ministerial-standards">Statement of Ministerial Standards</a> regarding employment of spouses and family members as Campion was not his partner at the time of her appointment. Joyce has <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/defiant-barnaby-joyce-denies-breaching-ministerial-rules-threatens-legal-action">also denied</a> he breached the ministerial rules.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/labor-moves-in-on-the-barnaby-joyce-affair-91632">Labor moves in on the Barnaby Joyce affair</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What is the role of ministerial staffers?</h2>
<p>Ministerial advisers are politically partisan staff who are personally appointed by ministers to work out of their private offices.</p>
<p>These advisers have become an integral part of the political landscape in the last 40 years. The number of Commonwealth ministerial staff <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Senate_Estimates/fapactte/estimates/sup1516/finance/index">increased</a> from 155 in 1972 to 423 in 2015.</p>
<p>The advisers undertake a wide range of functions. Tony Nutt, a former senior ministerial staffer, <a href="http://www.federationpress.com.au/bookstore/book.asp?isbn=9781760020637">said</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>… a ministerial adviser deals with the press. A ministerial adviser handles the politics. A ministerial adviser talks to the union. All of that happens every day of the week, everywhere in Australia all the time. Including, frankly, the odd bit of, you know, ancient Spanish practices and a bit of bastardry on the way through. That’s all the nature of politics. </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>How do they fit in our system of government?</h2>
<p>The modern Westminster ministerial advisory system is built on the 1853 <a href="http://www.civilservant.org.uk/library/1854_Northcote_Trevelyan_Report.pdf">Northcote-Trevelyan report</a> in Britain. </p>
<p>In the 18th and early 19th century, it was difficult to be appointed to a UK government office unless you were an aristocrat with the right connections to a very small elite. The Northcote-Trevelyan report rejected appointment based on patronage. It argued this led to difficulties in getting a good supply of employees in the public service compared to other professions.</p>
<p>This report forms the basis of the Westminster public service today. Public servants are expected to be neutral and apolitical, and recruited and promoted on the basis of merit. The intention was very much to purge the system of patronage.</p>
<p>Ministerial advisers pose a challenge to the Westminster system as they are largely recruited on a partisan basis and are expected to be politically committed to the government of the day. This undermines the intentions of having ministerial advisers who are recruited on the basis of merit, rather than patronage. </p>
<h2>How are ministerial staff appointed?</h2>
<p>Australian ministerial advisers are employed under the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2014C00540">Members of Parliament (Staff) Act</a> as ministers’ personal staff.</p>
<p>The employing minister determines the employment terms and conditions of ministerial advisers; the prime minister can vary these. The law is sparse and does not stipulate any precise requirements in terms of staff appointments.</p>
<p>In practice, the appointment of ministerial advisers is based on a party-political network of patronage. The primary consideration is loyalty to the political party – not merit. </p>
<p>There have been notorious instances of the appointment of unsuitable staff. These include then deputy prime minister Jim Cairns’ appointment of his mistress, Junie Morosi, as his principal private secretary (although she was considered spectacularly unqualified for her position).</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-is-barnabys-baby-a-matter-of-public-interest-or-just-of-interest-to-the-public-91507">Grattan on Friday: Is Barnaby's baby a matter of 'public interest' or just of interest to the public?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Some prime ministers have instituted a <a href="http://www.federationpress.com.au/bookstore/book.asp?isbn=9781760020637">centralised process</a> to reduce the appointment of unsuitable candidates. However, <a href="http://www.federationpress.com.au/bookstore/book.asp?isbn=9781760020637">my research</a> has shown that some senior ministers are able to circumvent such a process due to their position within the party. </p>
<p>Also, these processes primarily seek to filter candidates based on political danger – rather than on merit considerations. </p>
<h2>Is there a breach of the rules in Joyce’s case?</h2>
<p>Turnbull’s <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/statement_ministerial_standards.pdf">Statement of Ministerial Standards</a> provides that ministers’ close relatives and partners are banned from being appointed to positions in their ministerial or electorate offices. They also must not be employed in the offices of other members of the executive government without the prime minister’s express approval.</p>
<p>Joyce and Campion claim their relationship started after her appointment – so the government has argued this clause does not apply. </p>
<p>However, the ministerial standards also specify that ministers must declare any private interests held by them or members of their immediate family. And under the <a href="http://www.smos.gov.au/resources/statement-of-standards.html">Statement of Standards for Ministerial Staff</a>, ministerial advisers have to disclose – and take reasonable steps to avoid – any real or apparent conflicts of interest connected with their employment. Staff are required to provide their employing minister and the special minister of state with a statement of private interests.</p>
<p>Therefore, the relationship between Joyce and Campion should have been disclosed when it arose, as there might have been an apparent conflict of interest connected with Joyce’s ministerial position. It is then up to the prime minister to decide what is to happen following this.</p>
<p>But both the standards for ministers and for their advisers are not legislated. They are not enforceable in the courts or in parliament. Enforcement is handled completely within the executive, which has an incentive to bury embarrassing material wherever possible.</p>
<p>This means any breaches of the standards by ministers and their advisers would be handled behind closed doors, without any formal scrutiny by parliament or any external bodies.</p>
<p>The enforcement of ministerial and adviser standards has been patchy. Whether a minister resigns depends on the prime minister of the day and if there is media furore and public outrage over an issue.</p>
<h2>Are the rules too lax?</h2>
<p>The legislation governing the employment of advisers is sparse and limited to affirming ministers’ powers to employ their advisers. Beyond this, there is no legislative requirement for ministerial advisers to adhere to certain behavioural rules.</p>
<p>The weak appointment rules have allowed Campion to be shuffled around different offices without a formal appointment process. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.routledge.com/The-Rise-of-Political-Advisors-in-the-Westminster-System/Ng/p/book/9780415787482">Other Westminster countries</a> have stricter restrictions on the employment of advisers, either through a cap on the number of advisers (as in the UK) or a cap on the total budget for advisers (as in Canada). </p>
<p>The UK has a cap of two advisers per minister. Australia has no such limits. </p>
<p>Australia has the weakest regulation of ministerial staff when compared to other similar Westminster democracies. Other countries have stricter regulations that both restrict the actions of advisers and increase transparency.</p>
<p>Australian ministerial staff are now very important players in our democracy, but ministers and advisers are weakly regulated within our system. The law has lagged behind, but now is the time for reform.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91744/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yee-Fui Ng 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>The appointment of ministerial advisers is based on a party-political network of patronage, where the primary consideration is loyalty to the political party – not merit.Yee-Fui Ng, Lecturer, Graduate School of Business and Law, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/898772018-01-09T13:43:13Z2018-01-09T13:43:13ZIs that it? How Theresa May fumbled her cabinet reshuffle<p>After much anticipation, Prime Minister Theresa May has finally reshuffled her cabinet. The New Year changes were a delayed response to the resignation of <a href="https://theconversation.com/damian-green-resigns-and-theresa-may-cant-afford-to-lose-any-more-ministers-89505">Damian Green</a>, the former first secretary of state, who was sacked in December for breaching the Ministerial Code. </p>
<p>May had already lost two senior ministers in November. First, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/01/michael-fallon-quits-as-defence-secretary">Michael Fallon</a> quit as defence secretary amid allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards women, and then <a href="https://theconversation.com/priti-patel-exit-highlights-weakness-of-theresa-mays-government-87056">Priti Patel</a> was sacked as international development secretary after holding a series of undisclosed meetings with Israeli politicians. Perhaps confident that no more ministers would be caught up in allegations of sexual harassment, the prime minister took Green’s departure as an opportunity to refresh her front team.</p>
<p>Like most major reshuffles, this one was preceded by much speculation – but in the event it was a damp squib. </p>
<p>May has increased the number of cabinet attendees to 29, but 24 of them are old faces. They include Julian Smith, who replaced Gavin Williamson as chief whip following the latter’s <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41844320">promotion to defence secretary</a> in November, and Penny Mordaunt, who replaced Patel as international development secretary. In addition to Green’s earlier departure, three ministers left the cabinet: Patrick McLoughlin, the party chairman; James Brokenshire, the Northern Ireland secretary, who stepped down for health reasons; and Justine Greening, the education secretary.</p>
<p>A few ministers have changed jobs, but 20 of May’s 29 cabinet attendees hold
essentially the same portfolio as before, and, crucially, there has been no change at the top: Philip Hammond remains chancellor, Amber Rudd home secretary, Boris Johnson foreign secretary and David Davis Brexit secretary. As <a href="https://twitter.com/NSoames/status/950472504388345857">Tory grandee Nicholas Soames</a> tweeted: “Is that it?”</p>
<p>The reshuffle looks especially limited when compared with May’s first reshuffle. Back in July 2016, after succeeding David Cameron, she launched her premiership with one of the most <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsx001">wide-ranging reshuffles</a> of any incoming prime minister, dismissing or demoting no fewer than 13 of her erstwhile cabinet colleagues – most notably George Osborne and Michael Gove. Only 15 of the 27 ministers who attended her cabinet, including May herself, had attended Cameron’s last cabinet. Only five of them retained their job or portfolio.</p>
<p>The present reshuffle is closer in scale to May’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jun/11/hung-parliament-dup-boris-johnson-leadership-theresa-may-dismisses-as-tripe-claims-he-is-launching-leadership-bid">second</a>, which came in the wake of the 2017 general election. She was obliged to replace Ben Gummer, who had lost his Ipswich seat; she brought back Gove as environment secretary and brought in Brandon Lewis as the immigration minister. Overall, however, no fewer than 26 of her 28 post-election cabinet attendees had attended before polling day, and 21 of them retained their previous portfolios.</p>
<h2>Failure to deliver</h2>
<p>Reshuffles are a very public exercise in prime ministerial power. One-time cabinet minister Richard Crossman once <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7IK7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=%22Each+minister+fighting+in+the+Cabinet+for+his+department%22&source=bl&ots=zZxAnt3VfH&sig=9U826tqyMPT7wWoxZ3ahS1kbXmY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihocDP0MrYAhWGmLQKHZcCCGcQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22Each%20minister%20fighting%20in%20the%20Cabinet%20for%20his%20department%22&f=false">told an audience at Harvard</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Each minister fighting in the Cabinet for his department can be sacked by the prime minister any day … I am aware that I am there at the prime minister’s discretion. The prime minister can withdraw that discretion on any day he likes without stating a reason. And there’s nothing much I can do about it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But reshuffles can also be a very public reminder of the limits of prime ministerial power. A prime minister’s ability to wield the knife <a href="https://measuringleadership.wordpress.com/2014/11/06/what-is-leadership-capital/">waxes and wanes</a> with their personal authority. Whereas most prime ministers overhaul their governments after <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/camerons-post-election-reshuffle-a-historical-perspective">winning re-election</a>, May’s loss of her parliamentary majority at the recent general election meant she was simply unable to. Her immediate future was in doubt, and any sacked or reluctantly moved ministers could have taken the opportunity to challenge her leadership.</p>
<p>The same factors that constrained the prime minister in June 2017 tied her hands this January. She was unable to persuade Jeremy Hunt to move from the Department of Health, and she was unable to persuade Greening to move from Education to the Department for Work and Pensions. Hunt stayed in post, Greening quit the government outright. May could just about afford to lose one cabinet minister in this way, but with <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/20/damian-green-resigns-as-first-secretary-of-state-after-porn-allegations">Damien Green’s ignominious departure</a> only weeks before, other planned sackings were almost certainly shelved.</p>
<p>On the positive side, May has gone some way to broadening the look of her cabinet. She’s increased the number of women attending from eight to ten. She might also have helped to assuage the concerns of her party’s troublesome eurosceptic wing by slightly increasing the proportion of Leavers around the cabinet table.</p>
<p>On the other hand, May has done little to enhance her reputation and prestige. Having raised expectations of wholesale change, she has now failed to deliver; by failing to move Hunt and others, she has exposed the limits of her authority. Perhaps more importantly, the departure of Greening adds another unhappy former minister and potential Remainer rebel to the government’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-rebellion-could-open-the-floodgates-on-a-weak-prime-minister-89188">restive backbenches</a>. The parliamentary arithmetic was already tight for May’s government – and now it’s just a little bit tighter.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89877/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicholas Allen 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>Prime Minister Theresa May proved a bit of a push over instead of wielding the axe in her cabinet reshuffle.Nicholas Allen, Reader in Politics, Royal Holloway University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/863992017-10-26T23:33:47Z2017-10-26T23:33:47ZThe case of Michaelia Cash and her leaking adviser illustrates a failure of ministerial responsibility<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191960/original/file-20171026-28036-pjf32w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Michaelia Cash has refused to resign over misleading parliament, claiming she was unaware of one of her staffer’s actions.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The federal opposition is <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/michaelia-cash-clings-to-job-as-malcolm-turnbull-backs-her-in-20171026-gz8te3.html">continuing to call</a> for Employment Minister Michaelia Cash’s resignation, claiming she misled parliament this week after repeatedly telling a Senate estimates committee that neither she nor her office had any involvement in tipping off the media about a police raid.</p>
<p>Cash’s senior media adviser, David De Garis, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/25/michaelia-cash-and-the-rogue-staffer-when-political-theatre-goes-off-script">later confessed</a> he had leaked information about the raid on the Australian Workers Union’s offices to the press. Cash retracted her statements and <a href="https://theconversation.com/cash-staff-member-quits-over-media-tip-offs-as-awu-affair-backfires-86357">De Garis resigned</a>. </p>
<p>Labor frontbencher Tony Burke <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-25/cash-staffer-resigns-over-awu-raids/9086214">argued</a> that “the wrong person has resigned”. But Cash has refused to resign, claiming she was unaware of her staffer’s actions. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/michaelia-cash-clings-to-job-as-malcolm-turnbull-backs-her-in-20171026-gz8te3.html">has defended</a> Cash, saying she acted properly.</p>
<h2>Who are these advisers?</h2>
<p>Ministerial advisers are partisan staff who are personally appointed by ministers and work out of the ministers’ private offices. </p>
<p>The number of Commonwealth ministerial staff <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Senate_Estimates/fapactte/estimates/sup1516/finance/index">has increased</a> over the years from 155 in 1972 to 423 in 2015. </p>
<p>Ministerial advisers undertake a wide range of functions. Tony Nutt, a long-time former adviser, <a href="http://www.monash.edu/news/opinions/what-lessons-can-we-draw-from-the-leaked-tapes-crisis">has said</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>… a ministerial adviser deals with the press. A ministerial adviser handles the politics. A ministerial adviser talks to the union. All of that happens every day of the week, everywhere in Australia all the time. Including frankly, the odd bit of, you know, ancient Spanish practices and a bit of bastardry on the way through. That’s all the nature of politics.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The question is what happens if advisers overstep their roles? </p>
<h2>Ministerial responsibility and political advisers</h2>
<p>According to the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, ministers are responsible to parliament for the acts of their departments. </p>
<p>British academic Sir Ivor Jennings <a href="https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/711704">wrote</a> that the “act of every civil servant is by convention regarded as the act of the minister”. And British MP Lord Morrison <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Canadian_Constitutional_Conventions.html?id=RpfTngEACAAJ&redir_esc=y">proclaimed</a> that the “minister is responsible for every stamp stuck on an envelope”. </p>
<p>But it is doubtful that this principle has ever reflected reality. It is rare for ministers to resign or even accept responsibility for the actions of their department, where they were not personally involved.</p>
<p>Ministers should also technically take responsibility for the actions of advisers in their own offices, who are at an even higher level of direct ministerial control than departments.</p>
<p>Even more than public servants, advisers are seen to be acting as alter egos of their ministers. This means ministers should be accountable to parliament for the actions of their advisers – even those they did not authorise. </p>
<p>But what happens in reality is that ministers tend to use their advisers as scapegoats and blame them for controversial events. This is consistent with <a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/PublicChoiceTheory.html">“public choice” theory</a>, which predicts that politicians have the incentive to deflect all the blame that comes in their direction while accepting the credit for anything that goes right.</p>
<h2>How are advisers regulated?</h2>
<p>Australia has <a href="https://www.federationpress.com.au/bookstore/book.asp?isbn=9781760020637">inadequate legal and political regulation</a> of ministerial advisers. They are subject to a <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/statement_ministerial_standards.pdf">Statement of Standards</a>, which sets out the standards they are supposed to meet in preforming their duties. </p>
<p>Sanctions under the standards are handled internally within the executive through the Prime Minister’s Office. This means any breaches of the standards by ministerial advisers would be handled behind closed doors, without the scrutiny of parliament or any external bodies. </p>
<p>Ministerial advisers have <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/BWhmTMdqgKaAj7cNcvDX/full">also refused</a> to appear before parliamentary committees on their minister’s instruction. This has impeded the investigations of significant parliamentary committees, including the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/senate/committee/maritime_incident_ctte/report/report.pdf">Children Overboard affair</a>.</p>
<p>Australia thus has minimal legal and political regulation of ministerial advisers. This has led to an accountability deficit, where ministers have been able to utilise their advisers to escape responsibility for public controversies and scandals.</p>
<h2>How can we fix the system?</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.bookdepository.com/Rise-Political-Advisors-Westminster-System-Yee-Fui-Ng/9780415787482">Other Westminster jurisdictions</a> have more stringent regulation of political advisers. </p>
<p>There are a few forms of regulation of advisers. The first is restrictions on the employment of advisers, either through a cap on the numbers of advisers, as in the UK, or a cap on the total budget for advisers, as in Canada. </p>
<p>Second, regulations can restrict the actions of advisers themselves. For example, in the UK, there is a prohibition on advisers leaking confidential or sensitive information, which would have been applicable in this scandal.</p>
<p>Canada has post-employment restrictions banning advisers from becoming lobbyists for five years after ceasing their employment. </p>
<p>Third, transparency measures also exist, such as requirements that departments disclose all meetings that advisers have with the media (as in the UK) and what hospitality these advisers receive (in the UK and Canada). </p>
<p>Ideally, the Australian regulatory framework should be reformed so it is policed externally from the core executive. In Canada, the conflict of interest and lobbying provisions are policed by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, who has been independent and ready to criticise the government. </p>
<p>And, in the UK, <a href="http://www.civilservant.org.uk/library/2014_Osmotherly_Rules.pdf">the rules</a> provide for political advisers to appear before parliamentary committees. Similar guidelines could be drafted to facilitate the appearance of advisers before Australian parliamentary committees. </p>
<p>In the last 40 years, ministerial advisers have become an integral part of Australia’s system of government. But the law and rules have lagged behind, and our system should be reformed to ensure greater accountability.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86399/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yee-Fui Ng 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>Australia’s minimal legal and political regulation of ministerial advisers has led to an accountability deficit.Yee-Fui Ng, Lecturer, Graduate School of Business and Law, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.