For an issue that so engages the attention of politicians and public servants for an intense period of about a month every few years, surprisingly little has been published on the topic of caretaker conventions. This monograph draws together research — and the guidance documents developed by public service central agencies — to address matters of practical concern in managing the business of government during an election campaign.

As we show in this monograph, conventions are dynamic. They evolve through experience and political practice. This monograph addresses the theoretical underpinnings of the caretaker principles, traces their progressive institutionalisation in recent decades and examines some contemporary challenges for their interpretation and observance. It is important to note, however, that while our treatment of the guidance documents is currently accurate, they are ‘live’ documents that will adapt and change as experience and events dictate. It will, therefore, be necessary for practitioners and others with an interest in the trajectory of the caretaker conventions to monitor such changes and to consider them in the context of our arguments as laid out here.

Our research and understanding of the issues canvassed in this monograph has been assisted by the many Commonwealth, State and Territory officials who generously spoke to us about their experience of the caretaker conventions and reviewed sections of the manuscript. The 2006 Queensland election provided an opportunity to test some of our ideas and arguments through workshops organised by the Institute for Public Administration Australia (IPAA) Queensland Division. Thanks to IPAA and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

We are grateful to Professor John Wanna of the ANZSOG research program, who engaged us to undertake this research with a practitioner readership in mind and helped conceptualise and shape the manuscript. Special thanks to John Nethercote and Jonathan Boston for helpful comments on the draft and to John Butcher for his editing and deft management of the production process. Finally, we would like to acknowledge the generous support of the Centre for Governance and Public Policy at Griffith University for allowing us to complete this work alongside other research commitments.

Anne Tiernan and Jennifer Menzies
September 2007