|
Queensland's Next Unsuccessful Premier? (email sent
8/3/12)
Michael McKenna
The Australian
Re:
Newman can't just wait for ALP's fall, The Australian, 5/3/12
I would like to try to add value to your article. You
suggested that the campaign launch by the Queensland Opposition Leader (Campbell
Newman) was weak, and seemed to be rushed to deflect attention from questions
about campaign donations that may have been linked to a controversial Brisbane
City Council development approval.
Extract:
“ The "campaign launch", despite its title, usually kicks off the final act in a
party's election script, a week or so out from the poll. A normally
cringe-worthy show…. it does, however, serve a purpose. The launch is when the
political leader makes the last of the announcements, drawing together all the
policies into a pitch for power, a narrative for their planned term of
government.
The
problem was although the speech was long, it was short in detail and devoid of
the uplifting, rallying cry of a leader on the cusp of bringing the change that
successive polls tell us voters crave in Queensland. ……..
…….
Last week, Newman's campaign was under siege over his relationship with
developers at City Hall, amid revelations a controversial development was
approved after substantial donations were made into the council's re-election
fund, while the extent of his family's business dealings continued to fester.
The rushed appearance of the launch and the absence of substantial policy yet to
be announced lends some suspicion that yesterday's event was about shifting the
focus of the campaign conversation away from those questions.
Newman needs to do more to explain how he operated at council and to detail his
manifesto for state government.”
As your article implies, it is apparent that the Queensland
Opposition lacks any clear idea about how to govern more effectively than the
present state administration. Moreover there have been indications that dubious
business-government dealings (like those that the ALP suggested that Mr Newman was
linked to) have involved some in the State Government itself (as Mr Newman
subsequently claimed).
These points are developed in more detail on my web-site.
This includes reference to: (a) suggestions about reducing structural obstacles
that seem to prevent successful government (and effective oppositions); and (b)
the need for all political factions to get serious about tacking abuses of
power.
Unless attention is given to both these issues it seems very likely that
Queensland's next unsuccessful premier will be the unfortunate winner in the
forthcoming state election.
John Craig
Details [Working Draft]
Political 'success' would seem to require more than winning an election on
the basis of discontent with an existing government or trendy promises to fulfil
the electorate's dreams. If such a win is followed by a rapid loss of community
support over the next year or two because a populist policy agenda made little real
sense or could not be implemented in practice, this is hardly 'success'.
The Continuing Need for More Effective Government
The Queensland Oppositions’ apparent lack of any clear idea
about how to successfully govern Queensland has long been apparent, eg see
- Response to - An open note to Campbell Newman (March 2011) which suggested
that Queensland’s system of government was a mess. Moreover: (a) a similar mess
was replicated nationally, and the lack of real national ‘government’ (as
compared with attempts to do / control / micro-manage everything) is a factor in
state governments’ problems; (b) Queensland apparently faces difficulties (and
perhaps misrepresentation) in its capital accounts; and (c) more of the same in
Queensland (ie promises to ‘do things‘, without also building a framework for
effective ‘government’) would result in ongoing crises;
- Beyond Populist Rhetoric (March 2011) – which also suggested that the
Opposition’s ‘doing things’ agenda that was emerging in early 2011 would lead to
failures unless the institutions that are relied upon for information and
practical implementation are significantly strengthened;
- Curing Queensland's Myopia (June 2011) - which suggested, amongst other
things:
- an answer to Mr Newman’s question about ‘how things had got so
bad’;
- that institutional support to the political system must be
improved if state governments and oppositions are not to be left struggling
with: (a) inadequate information about what to do about complex public functions
in a rapidly changing strategic environment; and (b) little prospect of doing
anything effectively;
- that government’s core role is ‘governing’ (ie creating a
framework in which others can do things) and that government’s secondary role
(ie providing public goods and services) tends to be affected by market failures
and complexities – so that attempts in recent years to use market mechanisms and
business-like methods have mainly just added further complications to existing
difficulties.
Suggestions (similar to those in the documents mentioned
above) about ways to make government more successful were also made in relation
to:
However little has changed, and the community and its
representatives seem oblivious to, and unconcerned about, the structural
obstacles that lead governments to almost inevitable failure.
Combating Abuses of Power
It is noted that Mr Newman has countered ALP accusations
levelled at himself by claims of dubious dealings with developers by members of
the ALP (AAP, ‘Journalists
should probe Labor: Newman’, BrisbaneTimes, 5/3/12).
Extract:
“ The Liberal National Party leader says journalists are only focusing on
developer donations he received as Brisbane lord mayor, when developers had
contributed "far more to the Labor party in the last 10 years than they ever
have to this side of politics". Mr Newman says donations made to Labor in Urban
Land Development Authority areas, where planning control is taken off councils
and given to the state government, should be investigated. "They become the
planning authority with incredible powers," he told 612 ABC Brisbane this
morning. "No openness, no transparency, ministerial sign-off. "Look at the Labor
party donations and look at the companies that are operating in those urban
development questions. “
While the propriety of such dealings by
anyone can’t be assessed on the basis of simple allegations, there are many
indicators of abuses of power in the relationship between government and
business (eg see
Crony Capitalism in Queensland?, 2009). The latter referred to:
- problems in the process of developing major road projects in SE
Queensland;
- changes that have increased the risk that political decisions
might be distorted for private gain (eg public service politicisation and
significant private investment in public functions). These have re-created
conditions (and symptoms) like like those in Britain in the 19th century prior
to the introduction of the Westminster system of a professional, apolitical
public service.;
-
Reform of Queensland Institutions - or a Rising Tide of Public Hypocrisy?
(2004+), which listed many instances of apparent abuses of power;
- the process for approving a development
‘footprint’ in SE Queensland, which created moral hazards for those who made the
ultimate decisions (see also
Difficulties in Preparing a Regional Plan, 2004+).
The Fitzgerald Inquiry in the late 1980s
addressed the widespread abuse of police and political powers during the 1980s.
However it merely addressed symptoms of more fundamental weaknesses in
Queensland’s system of government that are mainly a symptom of the
‘resource curse'
(ie the widespread tendency of resource rich regions to suffer incompetent government
and limited economic development because rich natural assets give affected communities wealth
from which political elites can personally benefit by enabling others to exploit
those natural assets).
The post-Fitzgerald attempts at ‘reform’ of
Queensland’s machinery of government by idealistic amateurs under the Goss
Government made a bad situation much worse and left a legacy of dysfunctional
administrative machinery for its successors which increased the risk of abuses
of power (see
Queensland's Worst Government?, 2005). In practice the goal of 'reform'
was to create a political power base, not a competent system of government.
‘Senior’ positions were often gained by ‘yes men’, rather than by those with the
competence (or personality) to express professional reservations if things were
going wrong. This may have been due to the desire to ensure unquestioning
compliance with political directives. However where the public service is
politicised in such a way, the constraints on abuses of political power are
dramatically reduced (eg see Davis B., `Public Service Culture May Foster
Fraudsters', Australian, 24/7/95).
Note added later: It was reported that
Queensland's premier (Anna Bligh) had changed laws to restrict what lobbyists
and consultants can do when they cease public duties - to get rid of the stench
that arose when politicians left Parliament in search of corporate riches. This
restricted the options available to Campbell Newman, so (also inflamed by
decisions on growth corridors and buildings) he considered state politics.
Newman had gained direct access to Peter Beattie as premier to facilitate
favourable decisions, but this was not available under Anna Bligh [1]
Some suggestions about
the link between developing more effective institutions to support elected
governments and constraining abuses of power are outlined in
Journey Towards a More Effective 'Fitzgerald Inquiry' (2009). The latter
suggests that developing competent support to the political system in dealing
with the practical functions of government would probably be the best way to
improve government's performance and accountability.
|