Parliamentary Administration: What does it mean to manage a parliament effectively?

Abstract

Through the centuries scholars and practitioners have studied parliament and its reform from an institutional perspective but few have addressed the internal relationships among parliamentary administrators, their competing beliefs and their influence on parliament's effectiveness. Within the broad topic of parliamentary administration, this thesis explores what it means to actors in the national parliaments of the UK and Australia to manage those parliaments effectively. It was precipitated by evidence of a dissensus in administrative priorities amongst officials and members, and a purported decline in public confidence in democracy and engagement with parliament. Using a qualitative, interpretive and exploratory methodology to compare the two parliaments, I examined a wide range of literature and interviewed more than 90 parliamentary officials, members of parliament and other parliamentary actors, exploring dilemmas relating to governance, management, and procedural and cultural change. Addressing four underlying research questions, I found that competing beliefs about the relative value of procedural and management roles have militated against the accretion of effective management skills and expertise; most (but not all) members of parliament are indifferent to parliamentary administration and/or do not engage constructively in management issues; and structural and other differences between the two parliaments have had a limited effect on management and governance outcomes. The thesis drew four main conclusions which have implications for the future management of parliaments. Firstly, parliament is overwhelmingly an agonistic institution and competition between parliamentary actors for status, resources, influence and control has pervaded its administration and impeded reform. Secondly, in the context of parliament's role as a deliberative forum and broker of ideas, managing public expectations remains a principal challenge for its administrators. Thirdly, parliament's claims to be 'unique' and a consequent emphasis on differences over similarities with other public organisations have reduced the potential for learning from outside. Fourthly, a lack of constructive engagement with administrative issues from members of parliament has contributed to a vacuum of leadership in an institution where no one has overall authority. The last research question asked whether public management approaches could be usefully applied in parliament. My final argument is that adapting the management approaches discussed through the thesis (public value, collaboration and co-production) would provide an appropriate pathway from insularity towards collaborative relationships that cross organisational boundaries, and towards a greater appreciation by members and officials of their roles as public managers.