Advising Howard: Interpreting changes in advisory and support structures for the Prime Minister of Australia

John Howard, Prime Minister for nearly a decade, leads a disciplined Cabinet and, save for a few recent rumblings, a united and orderly backbench. He runs a tightly controlled political and policy agenda that unmistakably bears his personal stamp. How can John Howard's authority be understood and explained? While undoubtedly the product of his personality and working style, his formidable political skills, experience and renowned personal discipline, it may also be attributable to the substantial and sophisticated advisory infrastructure developed to support his prime ministership. This article surveys the key institutions that provide advice and support for John Howard's prime ministership, and assesses their effectiveness.     

The learner: John Howard's system of national security advice

This article uses an explanatory framework suggested by presidential studies scholars, Charles Walcott and Karen Hult (1995; 2004), to document the forces that have shaped the structures of support to decision-makers in the Australian national security policy domain. It traces the continuities in national security advisory arrangements – the ‘deep structures’ of advice and support to Australian prime ministers and their cabinets. The article focuses especially on the variable of prime ministerial choice. It argues that John Howard is the great learner of Australian politics, who in national security, as elsewhere, has demonstrated a formidable ability to capitalise on his inheritance from his predecessors Future Prime Ministers will continue to need effective advisory structures. Howard's legacy will shape these arrangements into the future.     

Policy capacity in disruptive times

ABSTRACT

In considering the widely held view that we have experienced an era of qualitative decline in policy provision, this paper briefly reviews four questions that appear to underlie such a view. Have there been identifiable transitions in deliberative processes, political practices and policy capacity in recent decades (and if so, what were the catalysts)? Has the relationship between policy practitioners and expert providers of policy advice changed (and if so, how)? Have channels of communication between the political/policy community and the research community deteriorated (and if so, why)? Has the political appreciation of public concerns and the public understanding of policy imperatives diminished? We use these to frame the results of a workshop in which researchers, policy practitioners and service providers participated. Our objective is to identify systematically the origin of contemporary policy problems, foreshadowing four articles that illuminate instances of success and failure in disruptive times.