If a convention reflects shared norms about political behaviour, is it not the prerogative of the government of the day to update or revise its content or application? Over the years, public servants have unobtrusively become the guardians of the detail and the application of the caretaker conventions. This presents a dilemma because public servants understandably want the certainty and clarity that detailed procedures provide. Australia’s ‘talent for bureaucracy’ (Davies 1964) tends to favour addressing problems by the development of detailed guidelines and procedures.

The trend to increased codification could reflect a diminished understanding of, and experience with, the processes of government. The application of conventions has been, in the past, the province of the most senior bureaucrats. Their long experience and judgement allowed them to make the fine distinctions often required to navigate the political/public service interface. To do so successfully requires a capacity to apply the caretaker principles with the confidence to take and defend such judgements in the contested atmosphere of an election campaign. Arguably, contemporary trends in public sector employment—rapid progression to senior ranks, external appointments to senior positions and greater use of contract appointments—could account for uncertainty and discomfort in applying the caretaker conventions. If that is the case, the trend to codification and prescription is likely to continue so that senior officials can point to written guidance as the basis for their decision-making.

The controversy that surrounds the application of caretaker conventions is unlikely to diminish but political processes require political solutions. The increase in detail in the application of caretaker conventions cannot continue indefinitely and, eventually, responsibility will have to return to ministers and political leaders to manage. With the increased potential for public servants to be disciplined for breaches of the guidelines there might well be some relief in returning ownership to the political players.