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.