The communications revolution and the increased power and pervasiveness of the media, along with global competitive pressures, have had a profound effect on the role of secretaries in supporting ministers. This effect can be seen in many developments:
the 24/7 focus on politics and the increased capacity required by ministers to respond and manage the immediate demands of the media
the increased expectation on government by the public, including immediacy of action, the linking of all program activities and the almost limitless reach of government
the response by governments of greater central control and control of communications in particular
the increased role of ministerial staff
the increased involvement in policy and administration by non-governmental organisations and individuals.
To some extent, this has introduced more competition to policy advising as well as program administration, keeping secretaries and their officers on their toes. It has also affected the way secretaries go about supporting their ministers:
working very often with the ministerial staff, relying less on direct dealings with the minister
building more extensive external relationships, with interest groups and think tanks in particular
establishing more sophisticated communications capacity within the department, closely linked to the minister’s office, and with closer control of external communications and relations with the media.
For these reasons, I have included a separate chapter (10) on communications and dealing with the media, while also describing aspects of the impact on secretaries in this chapter and the chapter (6) on management.
Increased management responsibilities through the financial and personnel management reforms of the 1980s and 1990s have also inevitably demanded more of secretaries’ own time adding to ministers’ tendencies to draw on the advice of ministerial staff and external groups, and to the need for secretaries and departments to build close links with advisers and external groups.
Another change since 1987 has been the introduction of portfolio ministers with junior ministers as well as parliamentary secretaries (who are also, in effect, junior ministers). Secretaries might now have three or more ministers to support, requiring them to rely more heavily on deputy secretaries, with ministers in turn relying more heavily also on their ministerial staff.
Table 3.5 The ‘ministerial team’
We always referred to the group of ministers and parliamentary secretaries as ‘the ministerial team’. The term was without exception somewhat of an oxymoron. The competition between ministers is always a central factor to take into account.
When Brian Howe was the Minister for Housing and Regional Development (1994–96), we had strict instructions not to copy our advice to him to the parliamentary secretary, Mary Crawford. Howe’s advisers were particularly keen to exclude her entirely from involvement in the regional economic development program despite her nominal responsibility for local government, which was critical to the program.
When Michael Wooldridge was Minister for Health and Family Services (1996–98), relations between the ministers seemed generally positive, but I always felt sympathy for Judi Moylan, who had to carry responsibility for the 1996 cuts to aged care and child care with little public support from the senior minister and his ERC colleagues who were the decision makers. (I remain of the view that the measures were generally worthwhile not only because they addressed the immediate budget pressures but because of their longer-term benefits.) Moylan was replaced by Warwick Smith before the 1998 election (when he lost his seat).
Later, when Wooldridge was Minister for Health and Aged Care and Bronwyn Bishop was the Minister for Aged Care (1998–2001), the relationship could be more difficult. For example, early in the 1999 budget process, there was a joint meeting with Bishop and the then Parliamentary Secretary, Senator Grant Tambling, to discuss portfolio priorities. This did not go well and subsequently the interaction on budget matters was between each minister and the department, with the department relaying to each the views and directions of the others (no doubt complemented by interaction between the respective ministerial offices).
My practice in the Health department was to identify a particular deputy to provide most of the secretary-equivalent support to each junior minister, while making it clear any minister had the right to deal with me directly if they needed (or preferred) to. I retained the central role with the portfolio minister. For the most part, this worked well, each minister feeling he or she received the attention required and the department being in a good position to coordinate and to ensure the portfolio minister could be kept informed across the full range of responsibilities. The arrangement also allowed the deputies to learn more about the role of a secretary in serving a minister.
On one or two occasions, Bishop expressed the view that I was not providing sufficient personal support to her as I was too occupied with supporting the portfolio minister, but she was certainly always complimentary about the dedicated support she received from the deputy secretary, Mary Murnane. Parliamentary secretaries such as Trish Worth and Grant Tambling also always told me they were very satisfied with the support they received from deputies Ian Lindenmayer and David Borthwick, respectively.