Privatising/leasing: Is the Queensland government heading for a full blown policy fiasco?
Taking the three lenses of evidence-based policy together, it would indeed appear to be the case that the Queensland government is heading for a full-blown policy fiasco. By a full-blown policy fiasco I mean electoral defeat.
The three lenses of evidence-based policy (e.g., Head, 2008; Althaus, Bridgman, & Davis, 2007) are:
- the political lens
- the research lens
- the technical lens.
The political lens is about what politicians do. It is knowing and understanding the electorate, and making choices that ensure political longevity. Former Queensland Premier, Peter Beattie, was a master of the policy backflip. It seemed that as soon as public discontent threatened his government’s political survival, Beattie ditched that policy. Former Prime Minister, John Howard, managed to introduce politically unpopular measures through establishing a rhetorical hegemony (Dyrenfurth, 2007). It is important to note, however, that governments sometimes have to make decisions that are electorally unpopular to provide for the future needs of their communities—water and climate change policies are two examples here. While politicians must be courageous and lead their communities into the future, they sometimes do so at their peril.
The research lens is usually seen to be about what academics and researchers do. What research or evidence is there to support or negate a particular policy? During the 2009 Queensland State Election the ALP commissioned research from an academic expert to discredit the Opposition’s economic credentials (Wanna, 2009). Similarly, international research has been used in Australia to guide policy on the Global Financial Crisis and climate change. Use of this type of evidence can, however, be difficult when there a two large bodies of evidence pointing in opposite directions, as appeared to be the case in relation to the Traveston Dam. If researchers want governments to use their evidence, it is important that they take into account the political imperatives of the day and present their research in ways that can be used readily by politicians (e.g., Whitty, 2006; Watson, 2007; Althaus, et al., 2007).
The technical lens is about what public employees do—administer a policy. In a Westminster-style democracy such as that in Queensland, policy making and policy administration cannot be easily separated (e.g., Mascarenhas, 1993; Kimber, 2000). Education policy researchers like Richardson (2007) in the United Kingdom have observed that, with the implementation of policies based on managerial thinking, the number of policy failures have increased because their instigators attempt to separate policy making from policy administration. Policy failure has often been seen to occur at the administrative level. Policy changes in its administration. Where policy and administration are interlinked, the risk of policy failure is reduced through continual feedback between the policy making and policy implementation arms of government.
All policies are based on values or ideology. Privatisation is part of the managerial armoury, which is based on neo-liberalism. From this ideological perspective, the ‘free market’ and individual freedom (i.e., freedom from) are paramount. From this perspective, if a government business enterprise is efficient it belongs in the private sector because the private sector is considered to be inherently more efficient (e.g., Kimber, 2000). For those at the extreme end of neo-liberal thinking, like Margaret Thatcher for instance, there is no such thing as society. Generally, neo-liberals redefine citizens in market terms—as consumers and customers. It is easier to see why the restoration of a AAA credit rating is important for neo-liberals.
Clearly, if the polling is correct, a significant component of the Queensland electorate is opposed to privatisation/leasing (political lens). Many economists, most notably John Quiggin (2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2009d, 2009e), have raised significant objections to the privatisation (or leasing) of these assets (research). Queensland Rail freight business staff have been vocal in their opposition (technical).
Yet the government has only slightly moved in its plans. Why? It seems to me that there is miscommunication between academics and politicians. For the government to listen to researchers, researchers need to do more than criticise. They must offer viable alternatives. The best way that they can provide alternatives is if the government provides them with all the information that treasury has. Similarly, there needs to be greater communication between workers and the government.
In response to the discontent, the Queensland government could call a summit of key stakeholders similar to that or even in conjunction with that on population growth, and use the alternatives generated by its participants.
Some alternatives might include:
- Increase user charging for Queensland rail’s freight business
- Explore a public private partnership for coal terminals
- Increase user-charging for Queensland Motorways
- Increase user-charging for the Port of Brisbane
- Institute a cap on the number of people who can move to Queensland.
Evidence-based policy might be the buzzword of the early twenty-first century, but it offers much in the way of analytical and practical insights to enhance public policy.
References
Althaus, C., Bridgman, P. & Davis. G. (2007). The Australian policy handbook. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Dyrenfurth, N. (2007), John Howard’s hegemony of values: the politics of ‘mateship’ in the Howard decade, Australian Journal of Political Science, 42(1).
Head, B. (2008). Three lenses of evidence-based policy.” Australian Journal of Public Administration 67(1).
Kimber, M. (2000). The Australian Public Service under the Keating Government: managerialism versus democracy. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of New England: Armidale.
Mascarenhas, R. (1993). Building an enterprising culture in the public sector: Reform on the public sector in Australia, Britain and New Zealand, 53(4).
Quiggin, J. (2009a). Bligh’s Bad Arguments for Privatisation, John Quiggin, 29 October. Retrieved on 22 November, 2009, from, http://johnquiggin.com/.
Quiggin, J. (2009b). A bit more on Queensland’s Asset Sales, John Quiggin, 5 November. Retrieved on 22 November, 2009, from, http://johnquiggin.com/.
Quiggin, J. (2009c). Out of the mainstream, John Quiggin, 7 November. Retrieved on 22 November, 2009, from, http://johnquiggin.com/.
Quiggin, J. (2009d). My column from yesterday’s Fin: Privatisation Debunked. John Quiggin, 6 November. Retrieved on 22 November, 2009, from http://johnquiggin.com/.
Quiggin, J. (2009e). Economists statement on Queensland asset sales, John Quiggin, 24 November, Retrieved on 28 November, 2009, from, http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2009/11/24/economists-statement-on-queensland-asset-sales/.
Richardson, W. (2007). Public policy failures and fiascos in education: Perspectives on the British examinations crises of 2000-2002 and other episodes since 1975, Oxford Review of Education, 33(1).
Wanna, J. (2009). Briefing Note on the Claim by Mr Springborg to cut $1 billion p.a. from Queensland Government Expenses over the Next Three Years. Retrieved on 15 March, 2009, from http://www.qld.alp.org.au/_dbase_upl/Report%20from%20Prof%20John%20Wanna.pdf.
Watson, L. (2007). Percolated or expresso? The ways in which education research influences policy development in Australia. Paper Presented to the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Conference, University of Canberra, 13-14 June.
Whitty, G. (2006). Education(al) research and education policy making: Is conflict inevitable? British Educational Research Journal, 32(1).
