The caretaker period concludes when the election result is known with either the confirmation of the continuation of the incumbent government or the commissioning of a new government. Although this has mostly proved straightforward enough, the operation of caretaker conventions in the period after elections emerged as an issue in the late 1990s following close-run election results in NSW, Queensland and Victoria.

The 1995 election in Queensland brought an unexpectedly close result. The Labor Government under Wayne Goss was eventually returned with a one-seat majority in the Legislative Assembly about 17 days after polling day. The Opposition then challenged the result in one seat, Mundingburra, in the Court of Disputed Returns. The judge ordered that a by-election be held in the seat on 3 February 1996. The by-election was won by the Liberal Party candidate and with the support of independent Liz Cunningham, the Coalition under Rob Borbidge secured the confidence of the Legislative Assembly and, hence, the ability to form government. Although the Government had not been in caretaker mode because the House was not dissolved for a by-election, once the result was clear, and Cunningham had indicated her intention to support the Coalition, Opposition Leader, Rob Borbidge, called on Premier Goss to ‘observe the appropriate convention’, and noted ‘the Goss Government should consider itself in a caretaker role only’ (Reuters 1996).

In Victoria in 1999, the election result was unclear for almost a month after the polls closed. It took several weeks and a by-election following the death of a candidate on polling day for a minority government to be formed. The ALP under Steve Bracks secured the support of three independents to oust incumbent premier, Jeff Kennett.

The situation posed a challenge for the Victorian Public Service, requiring it to understand and administer post-election caretaker arrangements until the new government could be sworn in (Davis et al. 2001, p. 18). As both parties courted the independents, political manoeuvring complicated the task, prompting the Department of the Premier and Cabinet to establish a reference group, supported by a secretariat, to support decision-making essential to keep the business of government running. Particularly problematic was the role of political advisers—both of incumbent and shadow ministers—who sought to act on behalf of their principals, creating difficulties for public service impartiality and neutrality. Several controversies arose during the extended caretaker period, including over the appointment of a new Auditor-General, and whether it was appropriate for a minister to sign a contract for health services that was in the final stages of negotiation, and would incur financial penalties if not resolved.

The Victorian experience suggested a need for clear guidance on caretaker arrangements in the post-election period. Davis et al. (2001, pp. 25-26) propose some principles for the conduct of public administration in such circumstances, but these have gone largely untested. Since the ambiguous results of the late 1990s, State and Federal elections have tended to deliver clear parliamentary majorities, mostly favouring incumbents. Former Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Michael Keating (2002, p. 20), urges public servants to avoid such situations, since unlike ministers and shadow ministers, political staff operate outside authority and accountability structures.