Accountability and integrity reforms in Queensland
The Queensland Premier’s moves to cap political donations, cap election spending and move towards the public funding of elections, enhance the powers of the Integrity Commission, and ban success fees for lobbyists are to be applauded.
Yet this donations cap, and it must be remembered that donations are not purely monetary, cannot be something that is purely imported from another jurisdiction. It needs to be adapted to the specifics of Queensland and a federal system, where political parties operate at federal, state and local levels. Policies that are not adapted to the specific context in which they are being implemented sometimes have a habit of failing.
These expanded powers for the Integrity Commission need to be backed by financial and staffing resources, and by ongoing modelling of ethical behaviour.
Some reforms to Parliament are also needed, such as voting method or set seats for minority groups similar to the seats for Maoris in New Zealand parliament. Reinstituting an upper house is likely to expand the number of politicians. The party system is too entrenched for a reinstated upper house to act as a house of review.
It is now incumbent on the federal government, and other state and territory governments to follow suit. The perception of corruption is sometimes higher in those systems of government that have extensive integrity system such as that which exists Queensland. This perception is because those who work in these systems are better at identifying it, exposing it, and hopefully eradicating it. It is those governments in which these integrity systems do not exist that concern ought to be directed at.
‘Murdered steak’, burnt duck, and boat people – just another day in Australian politics
Steak and duck
While, in her own words, Anna Bligh might have ‘murdered the steak’, it was the LNP that probably managed to burn its own duck. In Australian politics negative attack ads generally don’t work. They can leave those taking out the ad with a bad taste in their mouths. Graham Young, from Ambit Gambit/Online Opinion, analysed voter responses to the major parties’ advertising campaigns during the 2009 election. Voters were turned off the parties’ messages by the negative advertising run by both parties during the campaign but responded more positively to ads that focused on the party or the party leader as doing and not on the other party or its leader. A number of journalists commented during the 2009 campaign that it did not look good for the LNP during the leaders’ debate when Springborg sought to talk over Bligh.
Given the timing and the obviously high cost of the LNP’s black and white ads during Celebrity MasterChef, the LNP leaves itself open to a number question, one of which is where did the money come from? Given that many of the LNP’s constituents would be farmers, it seems odd to run an ad attacking Bligh during a program in which she sought to promote Queensland produce. If comments in various Brisbane newspapers this morning are anything to go by, people view Bligh’s appearance on Celebrity MasterChef as PR, but also think that it showed her as someone just like them.
Ultimately, Anna Bligh might have pulled off some good PR, with the assistance of the LNP. Today’s announcement that Bligh has negotiated a new trade deal with Moscow will only add to this PR campaign, as it highlights that she is ‘running the state’ and bringing revenue into Queensland . This positive PR might have a greater impact on voters’ opinions and behaviours than negative advertising. I’m looking forward to the next parliamentary sitting.
Boat people
The campaign to demonise asylum seekers who arrive by boat has once again heated up. Andrew Bartlett has been blogging on the human rights issues surrounding these people for some time and, as Crikey contributors have noted, the number of people who arrive by boat is eclipsed by the number of people who arrive by plane and overstay their visas. This campaign seems to be about populist politics playing on people’s fears about ‘the yellow hordes’ and an ignoring of the displacement of people by war and terrorism. Such a fear was central to the way in which the Howard Government used ‘the children overboard affair’. In this case no child was ever thrown into the water, as was argued by the then government. As the reaction over Hey Hey it’s Saturday indicates, Australians might still be struggling with eradicating racism. It would be helpful for the government to present clear information about immigration, including illegal immigration, that mitigates the demonising of people. It seems that the Opposition believes that it still has traction over questions of immigration and border protection. It could be argued that the Rudd Government needs to show more leadership and take the moral high ground.
Conclusion
The media is a powerful force that politicians can use to promote their message—or to self-destruct.
The election predicting game heats up
There has been some discussion both in the mainstream media and the blogosphere as to when the next federal election, particularly if it is going to be a double dissolution, is going to be. Antony Green is predicting a double dissolution election in September 2010. Malcolm McKerras is predicting an election on 31 August 2010. In my own opinion, a federal election is due by 27 November 2010. That means an election is likely anytime next year prior to the end of November. Whether that election date is in August or September is probably purely academic.
Does a win for local democracy mean the demise of the Liberal National Party (LNP)?
There has been significant discussion in the media regarding the failure of Peter Dutton to be parachuted into a safe seat following the Australian Electoral Commission’s redistribution of electoral boundaries. This failure raises some interesting points.
First, local branches should and will pre-select the candidate whom they believe will represent them best and will take umbrage against the party leadership if it seeks to interfere. Michelle Grattan noted in her Twitter that, approximately twelve months ago, Dutton was quite outspoken on ‘the evils of seat hopping’. I have to agree, ‘what a difference a redistribution can make’.
Second, Dutton’s defeat raises questions about the longevity of the Queensland LNP, particularly within the context of bickering between the federal Liberal and National parties over emissions trading. It might be recalled that the merger of the Queensland opposition parties has been seen by some as a National Party takeover of the Liberal Party. I read recently that a significant number of members from pre-merged parties failed to join the new party. There was indeed an attempt in some quarters not to put the merger to a vote of the membership. The failures of the Opposition in the Queensland Parliament in recent months might add to this conundrum.
While the Queensland LNP is ahead of the Queensland ALP on TPP statistics (but Anna Bligh is by far the preferred Premier), the federal Opposition is trailing the federal ALP on a TPP basis. Rudd is leading Turnbull as preferred Prime Minister by a very significant margin. Do these results, combined with Turnbull’s failure to parachute Dutton into the Gold Coast as well as the rift over the emissions trading, point to the Opposition’s need to find ways to become more in touch with its constituencies? Does the rift mean that the LNP will self-destruct?
International climate change rhetoric demands domestic action
Domestic politics has been taking a backseat to international politics this week. Yet, I have one question: why is it that Prime Minister Rudd is calling for significant action to address climate change but little is happening on the domestic front? From the opinion polls released earlier this week, it is clear that most Australians want the federal government’s carbon reduction scheme to contain more substantial cuts in carbon emissions than what is proposed. Using these polls, it can also be argued that the Opposition is out of step with a large number of Australians. While it can be expected that there are ideological differences between the major political parties, now is not the time for partisanship. It could be argued that the Rudd Government was elected with a mandate to address climate change. The dust storm that has been sweeping through New South Wales and Queensland, and that could reach New Zealand, might be a timely reminder of what Australia will be facing on a more regular basis if climate change is not adequately addressed. A year on from the release of the Garnaut Report, it appears that very little has changed.
The week in review (or why I don’t like Twitter grammar)
Accountability has been on the agenda at both federal and state level this week. On 4 September the Queensland Premier gave a speech to the National Press Club in which she repeated her call for a cap on political donations and a return to grassroots politicking. Unfortunately, only Crikey and The Australian appear to have reported the speech. Australian political culture is very much a face-to-face culture and grassroots politicking was an important element in Maxine McKew’s win in Bennelong in the 2007 federal election. Meanwhile, yesterday, federal parliament voted to reduce printing allowances (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/mps-pay-for-misusing-perks-20090909-fg9i.html), which have, at times, been abused.
While capping political donations (and donations are not necessarily monetary) and reducing printing allowances are important accountability measures, more is needed. They need to occur in all jurisdictions and not just one or two (given the federal nature of political parties). All jurisdictions could have lobbyist registers and ban success fees. Queensland’s lead to make lobbyists who also hold positions on government boards to choose between the board and the lobbying could also be adopted in other jurisdictions. Without an upper house (and the re-introduction of one is probably unfeasible) more could be done to enhance Queensland’s Legislative Assembly. While some commentators have argued that what works in Canada or New Zealand needs to be applied, it is important to note that these initiatives are guides. Policy initiatives need to be adapted to the jurisdiction before they can be adopted.
Yesterday, it was announced that crack teams would go into ‘poor performing’ Queensland schools to fix literacy problems. If additional help is being offered to students, then this move might prove positive. Yet poor school outcomes are sometimes linked to systemic issues that need to be addressed first. The fact that this move has been announced several days before the NAPLAN results are released is intriguing. Is this policy a knee-jerk reaction? Does it invite wider questions about the use of high-stakes tests such as NAPLAN as a means of holding teachers to account? This latter point raises the question of league tables, and the multitude of issues that come with them. There is a growing pile of literature pointing to and demonstrating the problems that come with high-stakes testing and league tables.
In an attempt to draw the two strands of this blog together, I turn to Twitter. I do not like Twitter grammar. The lack of apostrophes, overuse of exclamation marks, and absence of full stops is somewhat disconcerting. Whoever writes Premier Bligh’s Twitter appears not to know the difference between ‘its’ and ‘it’s’. Perhaps the Premier’s crack literacy team could start here?
Politicans’ use of Twitter could be an extension of the face-to-face personal political culture that exists in Australia, if they are indeed twittering themselves, as it could serve as a conversation between politician and constituents. In this way, the Internet clearly has become a significant element of political communication in Australia and thus it to might need to be subject to accountability measures.
Twittering pollie lands gig on MasterChef
It was reported yesterday morning that the Queensland Premier is going on Celebrity Master Chef. Well, where do I begin? Is Peter Beattie’s ‘media tart’ status under threat? Given that that the Premier appears to be using her status (and her leave) to raise money for charity perhaps it is not.
That the Murdoch papers appear to have taken the story directly from the Premier’s Twitter (although it is doubtful that she personally twitters), points to the changing nature of political communication in Australia. Twitter was a significant component of the Queensland ALP’s election campaign. The Premier’s status updates probably enhanced her popularity. One could ask the question, who actually uses and interacts with a politician (or the politician’s minder) via Twitter? Clearly some journalists do. Who reads these Twitters? Can we think in similar terms to the categorisation of political bloggers into ‘political junkies’ and ‘big brother’ watchers (e.g., Coleman 2003; Bruns 2008)? ‘Political junkies’ are those people who are highly politically literate and have well-defined political beliefs. ‘Big Brother’ watchers are ‘politically apathetic’. While they are ‘deeply involved’ in the show and ‘vote for their favourite housemates’, they are not ‘committed to their electoral choices in the political contest’ (Bruns 2008). Thus political junkies are deeply knowledgeable about and interested in politics. They are committed to a particular candidate or party. Big Brother watchers are largely apathetic. This said, in the past 24 hours since the announcement that Premier Bligh would appear on MasterChef, the number of followers on her Twitter has increased by approximately 200.
As the Premier asked for recipe suggestions, might I suggest Weasel Word Stew (slow cooked of course) or Spin Soufflé.
Does gender matter in politics anymore?
In a recent speech, Maxine McKew (http://apo.org.au/research/political-power-does-gender-matter-anymore) asks the question whether the growing number of women in senior positions in politics indicates that gender does not matter anymore. She argues that it matters less than before but it still matters more than it should. Federally, no woman has held the portfolios of Treasury or Defence, for instance. However, here in Queensland, it is of note that, in his attempt to ensure that Anna Bligh was his logical successor, Peter Beattie appointed her to the planning and treasury portfolios. The reason that gender is still important in politics is that “many women lose touch with the party [the ALP] when they have children, or other caring responsibilities. … [McKew hasn’t] noticed too many ALP branch meetings being held at family friendly times or venues. … Gender equality is not about making women fit into men’s roles, it is about recognising the value of women’s roles”. For McKew, this is why the ALP is committed to affirmative action.
Commenting on the treatment of Belinda Neal compared with male politicians at the federal level in an opinion piece sometime back, Peter Costello observed that women are required to act like the men and are then criticised more harshly for doing so. Costello observed that Belinda Neal was ordered to undertake anger management yet male politicians who have behaved worse than her have not had such a requirement imposed. He argued that such behaviour is unacceptable no matter whether you are male or female. Other points that could be raised are that some women do not the combative style of parliament and that some women speak differently to men in parliament. It has been noted, for instance, that many female politicians do not yell in parliament. Rather they keep an even tone or lower their voices.
Here in Queensland, a state that has a female Premier, female Governor, and produced a female Governor-General, are these points valid? Are there other points such as the report in today’s paper that it takes a woman 14 months to earn what a man earns in 12 months – and that is for doing the same job.
Where are the women?
Possum Comitatus (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/) and the folks at Crikey ask where are the female political (including psephologist) bloggers? This question certainly needs to be asked. Those who have reached national prominence and are discussed in the academic literature are largely all men. Indeed, it would seem that the typical political blogger is a highly educated male in his 30s. As a newcomer to the world of blogging, I am interested in finding out where women blog about politics. Over at Larvatus Prodeo (http://larvatusprodeo.net/), Anna Winter has some ideas. Winter argues that the issue is not that there are few female political bloggers, it is that they are not being recognised by their male contemporaries and that what women consider to be ‘political’ might not be what men consider to be ‘political’. Winter also suggests that women stay away from ‘hard political blogging’ because of the sexism that they encounter.
Here are the female political bloggers that I am aware of:
- Margot Kingston – Your Democracy, etc
- Anna Winter – Larvatus Prodeo
- Ronda Jambe – Ambit Gambit.
Possum lists:
Do you have any other people who could be added to the list?
The corruption of public language in Australia
In recent weeks I have re-read George Orwell’s ‘Politics of the English Language’ (1950), as well as read Don Watson’s Death Sentence (2003). The arguments of both writers are strikingly similar. Clarity and precision in language are essential. The plain language movement derives from Orwell. Watson (2003, 2004) argues that managerialism has corrupted public language. I understand managerialism to be the application of private sector management practices to the public sector and the preference for the free market. The language of business rather than the language of government is a feature of managerialism. While there needs to be a balance between clarity and precision on the one hand and personal taste on the other hand, I feel that managerialism has tipped the balance towards jargon and management clichés and away from clarity and precision.
Last week I consulted a style guide that omitted jargon, clichés, metaphors, and weasel words. While this omission is partly due to those who operate within a discipline not recognising that words specific to their discipline are incomprehensible to those outside it (like ‘governance’ or even ‘pedagogy’), it is important for me as a political scientist and an educator to understand how politicians use words and actions to obtain power. Part of our job as academics is to help fellow citizens decipher political spin. They need to see how John Howard, for instance, appropriated terms from the left such as ‘mateship’, ‘battler’ and ‘fair go’, and infused them with individualist ideology (Dyenforth 2007). It was ‘Howard’s rhetorical hegemony upon “Australian values” [that] contributed to his decade-long electoral success’ (Dyrenfurth 2007, p. 211) and to the collective desire to ignore inequality. Similarly, ‘benchmarking’, ‘core’ and ‘non-core promises’, and ‘key performance indicators’ are not going to provide citizens with better services because the language of business is not the language of government. Without clarity in language, the words of politicians might become words of mass destruction (Watson 2003, 2004). Much of this analysis might be lost due to the growing number of academics who defer to jargon rather than to plain language. We do need to know the terms and concepts that structure knowledge in our disciplines, but we also need to communicate effectively with those outside our discipline.
References
Dyrenfurth, N. 2007. ‘John Howard’s Hegemony of Values: The Politics of ‘Mateship’ in the Howard Decade’, Australian Journal of Political Science, 42, 2.
Orwell. G. 1950. ‘Politics and the English Language.’ In Shooting an Elephant and Other Essays. Great Britain: Secker and Warburg.
Watson, D. 2003. Death Sentence: The decay of public language. Sydney: Knopf.
Watson, D. 2004. Watson’s Dictionary of Weasel Words, Contemporary Clichés, Cant & Management Jargon. Sydney: Vintage.
