Input by John Craig (CPDS) to Property Council Infrastructure and Transport Committee
... drawn together from Notes on Committee Meetings  ... and presented out of context

forming a super-ministry has probably been proposed because government does not know what to do - and just want to be seen to be doing busy. It is always better to change what is being done and how it is being done first, with organizational structural change as last stage. A major source of problem is that Queensland's public administration is dysfunctional - because change has been driven by the simplistic ideas of interest groups and this has damaged base of practical knowledge and experience. Queensland's government machinery has reverted (due to politicisation in 1990s) to what it was like in 1960s when it was dominated by purely clerical 'administrators' before the process to develop professionalism and purposefulness in 1970s. Also there are clear signs of financial constraints. Queensland could only borrow about $7bn to increase tax rates by 10% - and this is not a lot when current capital spending is $5bn pa - and government previously claimed this was unsustainable without tax increases. Significant tax increases could impact on the economic structure.

this in itself is not election issue, but there is widespread disaffection because many interest groups finds that there is something they care about that is not right (eg hospitals, families, judicial system) - a situation like the 'unfocused anger' that Goss Government faced.

The problem is not only to improve administration. There seems also to be a financial constraint - which appears to require upgrading the tax base. This is an area in which PCA could also take an interest - because it represents property owners who also benefit directly (ie from higher property values) when community incomes are raised.

It is vital to simultaneously both upgrade management and do projects. If one tries to reform administration independent of practical programs (as was done in early 1990s) one can never tell what skills are really needed. But if one just pushes projects without upgrading management - the result will be a mess.

The problem in government is that over many years interest groups who did not have the competency to dictate how government should do things were allowed to do so.

The lack of reliable knowledge research base for policy in Queensland applies to everything. In the 1980s when involved in economic policy issues, it was found that general community ideas generally seemed to be 15 years behind what was in leading world literature. Revealing this put pressure on Premier's Department to set up first-ever policy function. The problem is that Queensland has relied on external investors to take most initiatives - and lacks the institutions to develop / research policy (as compared with just copying trendy ideas).

There is a fundamental difference between Australia and US in attitude to who is responsible. US was founded with a strong business tradition - and community leaders saw that they were responsible for driving initiatives. Australia was founded out of penal colony, had no strong business class and has typically relied on authorities to take initiatives.

It is hard to get access to anyone who will make decisions, because the politicisation of administration means that people do not have the knowledge and experience to feel confident about doing so.

Despite the better financial position of Australian governments, infrastructure funding is not straight forward. A discussion of this, and other aspects of Managing Growth in SE Queensland are on a web-site.

Suggestions are on web-site concerning How the Proposed Office of Urban Planning and Infrastructure Coordination could Work: and Why it Probably Won't. The main problem is that if it is to make authoritative 'decisions' it will lose access to the information required to do so, but if its role is primarily coordinative, then it won't be able to meet political expectations about unilaterally announcing definite plans. Some suggestions are made on web-site about reforms it could address. They basically revolve around overcoming effect of politicisation on public administration.

There is also a risk that attaching such functions to Treasury can result in them being diverted to means for raising revenue. Such things have happened before.

There is a limit to what governments can borrow. A 10% increase in the taxes over which Queensland has discretion allows only something like a $7bn extra borrowing - and Queensland is currently investing $5bn pa (about $2bn pa more than had been previously regarded as sustainable). $7bn will not go far.

Increasing pressure is unlikely to be beneficial if one is standing on quicksand. The problem is that government does not have a lot of financing capacity. Neither does it have the needed skills or organizational arrangements. Weaknesses in administration that appeared in Families Department (and now appear to be emerging Queensland Health) are very widespread. There is a need for someone to do the hard work of figuring out where the money might be obtained (which comes down to taking economic strategy seriously) and how it might be appropriately organized. A proposal about how such answers might be found has been drafted [and was circulated].

the process which depends on central decisions to over-ride objections won't work. It will lead to resistance to everything from everywhere (departments, LGAs).

there is certainly a need for champions. But the prosecutor can not also be the judge and jury - which is in effect what happens with totally centralized approach. The problem is getting anything out of Queensland's machinery of government is that it is not built on people but on formal processes / paper shuffling. [This suppresses internal leadership]

TransApex illustrates the need for real urban management - as can't just deal with tunnel proposals in isolation.

 in any respectable large city there is an underground rail system which carries bulk of commuter load. What is proposed for tunnels will lock Brisbane into non-public transport focus and not lay the basis for what is needed in 20 years.

Property Council should be explicit about this progression.