What the hell does a Parliamentary Secretary do, anyway?
A comment made on my post about the recent Ministerial reshuffle asked “For those of us who don’t know, can you please explain what it is exactly a Parliamentary Secretary does? I understand they are MPs, but what do they do??”
A good question and one that people often ask around Parliament too. I shall attempt to answer it. If you ask some of the Parl Secs themselves, they might say something like “sh*tkicker” or “winner of the booby prize” (or “consolation prize” if they’re feeling a bit more positive). Such comments are partly in jest though, and whilst almost all of them would rather be a Minister, they also much prefer being a Parl Sec than out of the Ministerial picture all together.
They can also produce very worthwhile work and are often given specific policy areas to focus on. For example Malcolm Turnbull has just been the position of Parl Sec to the Prime Minister. This basically means he works on what the Prime Minister wants him to, which in this case reportedly will involve water policy. Although he will answer (and presumably report to) the PM, he will presumably also need to coordinate what he does with other departments and Ministers, in particular the Environment, Agriculture and Regional Development areas.
The following is an excerpt from one of many useful briefs produced by the Department of the Senate which gives a more formal description:
Statutory provision is made in the Ministers of State Act 1952 for the Prime Minister to appoint a member of either house of Parliament to be a parliamentary secretary to a minister. While Section 44 of the Constitution prohibits a member of either house of Parliament from holding an ‘office of profit under the Crown’ (i.e. a salaried government position), ministers are specifically exempted by the Constitution from this provision. This meant that parliamentary secretaries, unlike ministers, could not be paid a supplement to their basic salaries. The Ministers of State and Other Legislation Act 2000 amended the Ministers of State Act by providing that parliamentary secretaries are to be appointed as ministers of state for constitutional purposes, which enables them now to be paid a salary.
A parliamentary secretary makes inquiries, conducts correspondence and deputises for his or her minister under the direction of that minister. While parliamentary secretaries can exercise the powers and perform the functions conferred upon ministers by the procedures of the Senate, they cannot take political responsibility for a department, be asked questions or answer questions that are put to ministers, or represent a Senate minister in relation to that minister’s responsibilities before a legislation committee considering estimates.
Though not responsible for a portfolio, Parliamentary Secretaries are appointed as Federal Executive Councillors.
There are now 12 Parl Secs out of the full Ministerial group of 42. (The full new list is here). Some of the positions are used to test out newcomers to see how they might perform as a Minister, or to put people on the outer rungs until a full Ministerial position becomes available. Inevitably some will also be used as sops to park people in who have to be given a position to satisfy the internal politics of the government – issues like factional balance, geographical spread, paying off supporters or quietening enemies can all come into play.
Another aspect worth noting is that Parl Secs are also bound by the convention or principle of Ministerial solidarity. Whilst very few people in the major parties cross the floor anyway these days, if a Parl Sec or Minister were to do so, they would have to resign their position. This is because Parl Secs are seen as part of the Executive Council (i.e. the Government), as opposed to being just a member of Parliament, so they are required to support a Government decision. This makes it very easy for any Prime Minister to get an issue through their Party Room or Caucus, with 42 of them are already locked into supporting it before they start a debate.
A further component in someone being appointed a Parl Sec is that it generally makes it a lot less likely that the person will speak publicly about issues outside their immediate responsibility. This was seen as one of the possible benefits to John Howard in making Malcolm Turnbull a Parl Sec, as it would curtail his pronouncements on issues like tax reform. Ministers are not supposed to comment on wider issues (although every now and then one will indulge themself), while backbenchers are generally allowed slightly freer reign (perhaps on the presumption that they are less likely to be listened to. This is given as a reason sometimes by people who resign from the Ministry (or Shadow Ministry) to go to the backbench – so they can more freely speak their mind. Sometimes this is seen as necessary to try to build better party or publice support for specific views they have.
UPDATE:
For anyone interested in the formal legal powers of Parliamentary Secretaries, the following was stated at a Senate Estimates Committee on 13th February, 2005:
Senator BARTLETT—Could I ask the minister: Is it possible for the parl sec to take on ministerial discretion?
Senator Vanstone—That is already clear. There was a case that came about when, I think, I was the junior minister in the Attorney-General’s portfolio in Justice and Customs. The question was raised whether I could make a decision in relation to extradition. I think it is in that case that the whole question of who is a minister was canvassed. It makes it very clear that, for the purposes of carrying out ministerial duties, parliamentary secretaries, as members of Executive Council, are the equivalent of ministers. That is well settled, as I understand it.
Mr Metcalfe—I understand that the case in question related to Senator Kay Patterson when she was parliamentary secretary in this portfolio. The High Court decision essentially confirmed that a parliamentary secretary has the same powers as a minister. I am advised though that, subsequent to that, parliamentary secretaries are now also appointed under section 64 of the Constitution and so essentially are appointed as ministers. From both the decision of the High Court as well as the practice of the way that the commission is provided to the parliamentary secretary, there can be no doubt that parliamentary secretaries exercise the same powers and have the same responsibilities as ministers.
22 Comments, Comment or Ping
Davo
Thankyou Andrew, for an honest and clear assessment. Always wondered what went on under the speccy flagpole of the ‘molehill’. Heh.
Jan 28th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd
of course the sick joke in the house is that we have bench warmers who sit on the back benches of both major parties for decades without anyone having a clue who they are and with no work to do.
I used to watch them. They would turn up for question time and nod off, scuttle off to lunch, then dinner and nothing much in between.
Excuse me for being cynical but why do we need senior secretaries to ministers to do the work when the back bench is elected to do it?
On another parliamentary question. All during the ramming through of vital and far reaching legislation last year McGauran voted as a Nationals senator when his membership had lapsed.
Is there an electoral rort involved there anywhere?
Jan 28th, 2006
Davo
(oops, damn commas, never could get them in the correct place.)
Jan 28th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett
Marilyn, in answer to your question:
Under the Constitution (and the Electoral Act) you are elected to the Parliament as an individual person, not as a party representative. The Constitution didn’t mention political parties at all until the post-1975 amendment to do with Senate vacancies.
I doubt McGauran would have voted differently in any case, but once you are sworn into the Parliament, you’re in there for the length of your term unless someone challenges the validity of your election (within a certain timeframe), or your eligibility to be a member of Parliament (due to dual citizenship, or office of profit under the Crown).
Whether you remain a member of the party you were elected with is not relevant legally/constitutionally.
Mal Colston – whose defection was probably the most disgraceful for many decades (maybe ever??) – proved that very conclusively.
Jan 28th, 2006
Geoff
That’s true Andrew and it seems the point is lost on Marilyn that these people are elected representatives, back-bencher or not and that they can serve on various committees as well. Their prime reason for being is to serve their constituency… which is why most have an office in their electorate which is staffed.
Jan 28th, 2006
Wendy Lewthwaite
Question For Geoff. You seem well informed so I thought I would ask about about Eric Abetz.His role is some what difficult to follow. Special they call him. Umm He thinks hes so special that he does not even bother to reply to letters from the public. His advisor Peter will take calls and say the opposite to what is really going down. It seems to me that we really need to do something about this. Schults is no different. These lot are paid by the tax payer and its annoying. The question is Geoff what are, if any, the options for the public to lodge a complaint re these special little helpers do you know ?. Can we write to the PCJC or what? Peter informed me that NFP were to loose their tax claims if they campainge at election times.This is good news for me knowing it really upsets Howard that much so we will tripple our Campainges however there are others who really cant do this. Which is the best course of complaing loudly Geoff about the arrogance of none replies to letters and phone calls because nothing annoys people more than that.
Jan 28th, 2006
Marilyn Shepherd
For heavens sake Geoff I used to work for a former leader of the Democrats – I know exactly what the representatives are supposed to do, I also know exactly what they do.
Please don’t treat me as if I am some misguided teenager without a clue. It is tedious and tiresome.
Jan 28th, 2006
Geoff
Then don’t make stupid, incorrect statements then Marilyn.
Don’t try the “I used to” stuff on me either I know politicians and their staff as well and let me tell you, they ain’t that special and neither are their staff. in fact many could do with getting better staff. I include your ex-boss in that.
Not much you can do Wendy especially if their boss backs them, or is unaware. Many pollies get only what gets through the staff censor.
The best way is to get them onside. Or speak directly to the member or Senator. make an appointment and then you can judge for yourself if you are just wasting your time.
Talkback does however have a bit of sway these days and you then run the gauntlet with the Commentator and his/her staff. You have to pick and choose something they are already interested in most of the time. Just like pollies. Mind you a Commentator with an axe to grind against a pollie will usually air anything factual to twist the knife or get a bite.
The press is difficult too, letters are sporadic and a bit like the lottery.
Lobbying seems fairly healthy for the professional lobbyists and for people or businesses that donate.
Joining a party can be advantageous as long as you get the ear and attention of the hierachy or become part of it.
You could try playing one off against the other of course, but the one with the higher profile usually wins out.
Jan 28th, 2006
David
Andrew.
Noting your response to the role of an parliamentary secretary; could the Nationals lose party status in the Senate?
I note a news report on the ABC’s website yesterday.
Jan 29th, 2006
David
Andrew.
Checking out today’s press, I sighted a story in the Sunday-Mail.
http://www.thesundaymail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,17968510%255E903,00.html
I would invite readers to read through the article which shows that Senator McGauran’s application for membership of the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party could be blocked. Therefore the senator having to sit as an independent.
Jan 29th, 2006
Wendy Lewthwaite
Thank you for your reply Geoff.I know what you mean. We sent much info regarding live exports to Andrew for years and did not receive a reply. So we sort of started off on the wrong foot.
What happens with staff is they get friends with people they are in contact with re their duties and form their own judgement. That means the Senators only get what they want them to get. We also tried to contact Family First for ever. I personally informed Steve Fielding that nobody answered a phone or a email six weeks after the elections. I might add nothing has changed.Talk backs are good unless of course you are really into politics which is the case for us with our live exports. John Laws went into damage control when I sent graphic video to his office. Because his staff were really pushing for him to do something about live exports he wrote a long letter telling us how he wanted to set aside time etc to invite us on the show only to have his producer block us. The Gold Coast Bulletin have refused to do a story on our group which is called People Against Live Exports for almost five years now. They claim city folk are not interested in farm animal cruelty however the real reason is Rupert Murdock owns and runs live exports along with the Packer family Lecourts and others.All of which of course have huge Media Control.
I am trying to get all the public to protest about conflict of interests re media giants as no doubt you probably have already. I do have a lot of dealings with Islamic Leaders in Australia so maybe we could think of doing an Australian Party. At least we would get some media attention[grin]. Oh By the way if you have any contacts the AWB kick backs are not just wheat. AWB Actually purchased the interests of live exports from Wesfarmers Landmark on the 29th August 2003 in an attempt to distance themselves. The Australian public do not have a clue that this money to Saddam is also blood money from the cruel live export trade. Nobody is screaming it from the roof top or even putting it up on the net. If I were in office I would have a sign as big as Texas hung outside my window and drive around plastered with it all over my car. As I am not in office I did the next best thing. I called AWB to put our proposal to them regarding a joint venture to slaughter here creating thousands of jobs. Who knows they might welcome a tax deduction before this is all over. Or they might think its best to be seen to do something to work in with the public. Either way from their point of veiw it makes a better story than the present one. Again Geoff thanks for your time and goodluck with whatever it is you do. I intend to do something about the media control and welcome any ideas.
I was thinking of an overseas paper providing free delivery to Aussie households and with basic Aussie related info. Like who owns what in this country. What you think about that idea Geoff?
Jan 29th, 2006
Not my Real Name
Thanks for your explanation, Andrew.
So, putting Malcolm Turnbull in the PM’s office is a case of friends close, enemies closer, yes?
Further, a good way to keep an eye on his policy choices, or a way to restrict his policy output.
Very clever!!
Jan 29th, 2006
Geoff
It is possible that Costello or his supporters put to the PM that Turnbull and his ambitions need to be curtailed. As Turnbull has made his main stance on Tax.
Making him the PS on Water gives him a direct link to the PM, who seems to think he’ll be keeping Malcolm too busy to do anything else. (Hence appeasing the Costello mob.) Someone should have told Malcolm that.
Jan 29th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett
David
Despite what’s in the Sunday Mail, I would be highly surprised if Senator McGuaran’s application is not accepted quickly and unanimously.
Even if for some reason it wasn’t I would still be surprised if turned into someone who would vote against the Government on anything much.
The issue of ‘party status’ is not very meaningful really – the main thing it effects are resources like staff poisitions. However, the CLP Senator for the Northern Territory sits with the Nationals, which keeps them at 5, which is the main number of significance.
Jan 29th, 2006
David
Andrew.
Re; Your response January 29th, 2006 at 5:47 pm.
Thanks for posting a response and the arrangement between the CLP (Northern Territory)and the Libs/Nats down there in Canberra is interesting.
Having had a look at the CLP website, it is interesting. I note your comments about staffing.
Jan 30th, 2006
Margaret Clinch
Concerned Constituent
On the matter of Parliamentary Secretaries, those organisations with serious concerns can feel very dissatisfied when a letter addressed to Minister is answered in a dismissive way by a Parliamentary Secretary.
It is even worse when it happens twice.
What authority does a Parliamentary Secretary’s letter have then. If a reply is not signed by the relevant Ministe? Who then is accountable ?
Is this another way of getting the brush off after the statutary delay.
M A Clinch
Darwin.
Jan 30th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett
In response to Margaret Clinch:
Parl Secreatries still have authority and any correspondence by them still has validity. In a sense they are semi-Ministers. The ultimate accountability in that portfolio area lies with the senior Minister (in as much as Ministerial accountability still exists in the Howard era).
However, a Parl Sec is still responsible for any action, statement or letter signed by them.
Jan 30th, 2006
Ken
Amusing how everyone (apart from the G&M biffo show of course)is treating this so seriously. PS’s were created to enable additioanl largesse to be distributed and egos to be massaged to sure up alliances and block enemies. Any acutal work that is done is purely incidental – I am constantly amused by the never ending view promulgated by the media and on blogs like this that Ministers / pollies are all knowing and experts. etc. The most recent was the SMH on Saturday spouting on about former NSW Planning and intimate knowledge of planning legisltioan and Sydneys futuer for 30 yeasr etc as being a great advantage to his new employeres. Former pollies are hired becasue of the calls they can make, the doors thay can open and the influecne they can peddle – not some supposed aura of ability.
Most Minsters are lucky of they can be briefed well enough to sound knowledgeable in two minutes media bites. All the work is done by bureacrast and staffers – At best Minsiters and Goveernemnts set the tone and officials follow, or alternatibvely convicne Minsters to follow the dierction thay know is the ebst in any case. Hence the issue with Federal Deparmtens eg DIMA so often referred to here as being so called incompetnet – they are not they are desperatley trying to satisfy a direction they interpret from the politicaisn adn remain within the bounds of acting in accord with law and procedure. That often presnts a very convoluted spiral of intrigue, as demonstragted by the extraordinary claim / counter cliam and competing evidnce? facst? shwon on this board on immigration matters. Sometimes they get it wrong – but generally gets by.
So Parl Secs are just another way to reward and shiore up support – and local memebers are useful if they percevei some benfit to themselves – otehrwise they won’t reply.
Jan 31st, 2006
Andrew Bartlett
Ken
I wouldn’t want to totally disabuse you of your cynicism. The creation of Parl Secs was at least partly driven by having more postions to hand out.
However, whist we can all point to examples of incompetence, there are plenty of Ministers (and Parl Secs) who are quite capable, do a lot of work and make an impact. This hardly equates to suggesting they are “all knowing”, etc.
To suggest that they just sit there while staff and bureaucrats do all the work is not accurate in the vast majority of cases. Mind you, with those who are incompetent and/or ideological zealots, we would all be better off if they did do nothing. Nothing more scary than the hardworking incompetent.
Jan 31st, 2006
Ken
Andrew
Thank you for your response – my cynicism is a prodcut of long experience, and a bit of gentle prodding everyone (in particualr your bloggers) is so very serious these days – notwithstanding, while I agree that there is a great deal of competence and hard work put in by many – in govt or not – to a great degree apart from the obvious movement in and out of favour of particualr interest groups and their pet policies – Ministers etc either do as their briefed (most) or set a broad direction / view that can be acted on and implemented. Two good examples are former PM Keating who really set the econmouic dierction that changed this country during the 80’s and 90’s for better or worse is not the issue. He set the agenda but the detailed working of floating the $, tariff redcutions, competition policy and the like was the work of others, and was already probably in the bottom drawer. Equally the view of “we need less public servants and more private sectro invovlment” leads to public officials outsourcing like crazy, the detaisl of contract documentation , servcie specifications, pricing and costing, transfer pricing etc are not the domian of Minsters and no-one would think they should be (except the press that is).
I suppose what i was saying was not that they didn’t do any work but more that our system of “westminster” accountability assumes or encourages the view that the Minister is all knowing – viz question time. The truth is I bet you can’t name one Minster that writes their own QT folder. Maybe you do if so – congratulations.
Perhasp the senate system of committees ect allows for a greaetr understadnign of the detial – certainly when I liasten to parliamnet the senate debates certain ly seem more detailed and “natural” than the recirculated briefings (on both sides) that are taken as debate in the house.
So getting back to the point – you’ll still have trouble convicning me that parl secs aer anything more that jerseys to be handed out irrespectvie of what work they do
Jan 31st, 2006
Andrew Bartlett
Ken
You’re final statement is probably broadly right – although that is not the same as saying that Parl Secs don’t do anything of value.
A key question (and the one most on-topic to this thread) is what the point of a Parl Sec is, and are they necessary? (although another key question could be whether many people really give a rat’s, which is a factor Govts often rely on)
There’s no doubt they were created and are often used as way of having some more jerseys/rewards to hand out, ways to buy loyalty, etc. Looking at the latest list of Parl Secs shows that there’s a few there who couldn’t possibly be seen to be there on merit.
I’m sure some of them do make a valuable contribution in the role, but the question has to be asked why they are Parl Secs instead of a junior Minister. It is a bit like the ‘Minister you have when you don’t want to look like you have a Minister’ and to deflect some criticism of a Govt looking too top-heavy and having too many Ministers. If there is sufficient workload to require a junior Ministry in the area, then the Govt of the day should be prpeared to publicly argue this case and make it a Ministry, rather than the quasi Parl Sec role.
Some argue Parl Sec positions are important training grounds, but junior Ministry perfrom this function too, as they are usually in a position where they are subordinate to a Cabinet Minister, who should take the ultimate oversight.
Jan 31st, 2006
Geoff
Junior Minister/Ministry?
Let’s see… there’s the PM, then there’s the Ministry, then the Outer Ministry, then the Parliamentary Secretaries.
A parliamentary secretary IS…
a member with similar status to a minister who assists a minister or the PM in performing his or her executive functions.
I think you’ll also find where as ministers are responsible for the current running of departments and implementing current policy, parliamentary secretaries are busy creating new policies etc, etc, etc…
Jan 31st, 2006