Kouzes and Posner (1995, 2003) have outlined five leadership practices:

• modelling the way
• inspiring a shared vision
• challenging the process
• enabling others to act
• encouraging the heart. 

Many of these practices appear abandoned or unfilled in a world where politics seems to have come to be driven by focus groups and opinion polls—highlighted perhaps by similar policies on asylum seekers and a lack of real attention to climate change. We appear to have witnessed politics in rawest form—a contestation for power and power alone.   

As neither major party has expressed a clear vision for Australia’s future, neither major party appears to have inspired a shared vision of that destiny. Thus neither major party has gained sufficient seats in the House of Representatives to form a government in its own right.

By contrast, the Australian Greens have not only attained the balance of power in the Senate but also gained a seat in the House of Representatives. While Bandt has stated that he will support Labor in the current uncertain climate, the achievement possibly makes the Greens more successful as a third paper than the Australian Democrats was. The question here is have the Greens attained this success because of a clearly articulated and shared vision or because of a protest against the apparent abdication of leadership on issues such as climate change, asylum seekers, and the rights of same sex couples? Is this vote a mixture of both these possibilities?

Moving to modelling the way, by concentrating on focus groups and opinions it would appear that the major parties have just reflected back the views of those in these focus groups. While it is essential that parliament is representative of the Australian community, it is also necessary to present a vision for the future and to demonstrate how to get there. Again, one could argue that the Greens have modelled how to act in a world where climate needs to be protected and the rights of all should be upheld.  

While the governing party replacing its leader close to an election might challenge the process for some, it would seem that many Australians have rejected this method as an accountability model for Australian democracy. Yet what real challenges to the process of Australian democracy were we presented with that enhanced accountability or increased democratic participation? The political group, GetUp, succeeded in having the Howard Government-era electoral law that closed the electoral rolls on the day that the writ is issued declared unconstitutional. Both major parties demonised asylum seekers and failed to commit to significant action on climate change. The ALP failed to emphasise its success in dealing the Global Financial Crisis and the Coalition failed to obliterate the spectre of WorkChoices from the memory of many Australians. Rather it capitalised on the fear of potential refugees arriving by boat.

Enabling others to act could be viewed in terms of teamwork. This aspect of leadership seems to have been diminished in the shift to a more presidential-style of election campaign. If the special edition of the 7.30 Report last night is any indication, there is a fascination, at least in the media, of the three Independent members of parliament—all ex-National Party members—publically stating that they will work together to ensure stable government. This outcome will of course be a difficult task, as the Senate will be quite different from July next year when the new Greens senators take their place. Obviously, the Independent members of parliament see teamwork as an important element of leadership.  

Finally, with the respect to encouraging the heart, in their book, What is this thing called leadership?, Cranston and Ehrich (2007) present a series of interviews with Australian leaders from across fields such as arts, politics, medicine, the environment, the not-for-profit sector, public administration and business. These leaders articulate many of these qualities of leadership. For instance, former Brisbane Lord Mayor, Jim Soorley, sees leadership as being about the three ‘Cs’— ‘a sense of conviction … a commitment, that is really hard work … [and] compassion … you’ve got to have a sense of understanding and empathy for those who don’t necessarily share your conviction or your commitment at the moment’ (Cranston & Ehrich, 2007, p. 62). It remains to be seen how empathetic politicians are towards those in their respective parties who have questioned and those in the community who disagree with the policies on offer.

Ultimately, the outcome of a hung parliament or a minority government would seem to represent the failure of political leadership from the major parties. While this diminution of political leadership might in part be a consequence a world in which news updates are provided on the hour, every hour, our political leaders need to present us with a clear vision for the future, inspire us to desire that outcome and enable us to work together to achieve that future by acting in an ethical and accountable manner.

References

Cranston, N. & Ehrich, L. (2007). What is this thing called leadership? Brisbane: Australian Academic Press.

Cranston, N., Ehrich, L. & Kimber, M. (2006). ‘Ethical Dilemmas: The ‘Bread And Butter Of Educational Leaders Lives’, Journal of Educational Administration, 44, 2, 106-21.

Kimber, M. (2009). Leadership  in  practice: enlightening stories, Primary & Middle Years Educator, May.

Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. (2003). The leadership challenge workbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. (1995). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organizations (2^nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

The Australian Constitution divides power between the federal government and the state governments, with Section 51 detailing the powers of the federal government.

Since the federal government took control of income tax in the 1940s, a vertical fiscal imbalance has ensued between the federal and state governments. Here the federal government collects the bulk of the revenue while the states deliver the bulk of the services.

Any reconfiguration of the powers of both levels of government needs to take into account the principle of subsidiarity — ‘the concept that decisions should be taken as close as possible to the citizens by the lowest-level competent authority. … In principle, subsidiarity would entail that a central (or higher) level of government would perform only those essential tasks that (for reasons of scale, capacity or need for exclusive power) cannot be effectively undertaken at lower levels of administrative decision-making’  (http://epress.anu.edu.au/anzsog/fra/mobile_devices/ch10s04.html).

The three lenses of evidence-based policy (e.g., Head, 2008; Althaus, Bridgman, & Davis, 2007) are:

1. the political lens
2. the research lens
3. 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).

Does this mean that, if women were elected to senior leadership positions in government in the first place, there would be no mess to clean up? Without strong integrity systems in place, someone is probably always going to clean up after somebody else.  

Whether Keneally has been left to clean up the mess or not, the importance of providing younger women with role models through NSW now having a female preimer, female deputy premier, and a female governor I think is undeniable.

It also suggests that the Greens could pick up a seat or two in the Senate. More first preferences for the House could also go to the Greens, but it is unlikely that they will pick up a House of Representatives seat in Queensland due to the dominance of the two major parties.  

If the Coalition does block the ETS, and renege on its agreement, it’s not just the 2010 election – double dissolution or not – that they are out of the race for. It might the subsequent one to two elections as well.

Switching from Turnbull to a climate change denialist is likely to spell disaster for the Coalition.

Update: The Queensland LNP is currently debating the ETS.

For some time, others and I (e.g., Kimber, 2000, 2004, 2006; Kimber & Maddox, 2003; Ehrich, Cranston & Kimber, 2004) have argued that the realities of an expanding system of ministerial staff mean that the question of their accountability must be addressed. Public servants have been reporting the potential of ministerial staff trying to direct them.

Why is this bad if the role of a ministerial staffer is to provide their minister with political advice? It is bad because the role of public servant is to provide their minister with expert advice in a frank and fearless manner (yes, I know this phrase is cliché but it is true). Thus they must at times provide the minister with advice that the minister might not want to hear. They are afforded tenure and anonymity to ensure that they can provide advice without fear or favour (yes, I know another cliché). It is bad because the power balance must favour the minister because the minister is the elected representative.

Public servants are now covered by a range of ethical requirements including codes of conduct, post-separation employment conditions, and whistleblower protection. In many cases ministerial staff are not covered by similar provisions.

While the Merri Rose affair indicates that ministerial staff should be afforded some protections (e.g., Tiernan), these protections should not condone their usurping both the role of the public servant and the role of the minister. It is when ministerial staff pressure public servants and act without the knowledge of their minister that governments must act to reduce the power of ministerial staff. They must increase the accountability of ministerial staff. They must increase the power of public servants so that they can interact with ministerial staff on a level playing field.

In previous research I have offered the following as means of enhancing the accountability systems covering ministerial staff.

- Code of conduct similar to that for public servants, but contains recognition of the distinct political role of ministerial staff.

- Ensure that the behaviour of ministerial staff as well as ministers and parliamentary secretaries is fully covered by the Integrity Commission.

- Ensure that ministerial staff can be called before parliamentary inquiries

- Develop positive relationships between staff and the department – the minister and the head of department

- Ministers, senior ministerial staff, and department heads model ethical behaviour

- Department heads ensure that ministerial staff understand the role of public servants

- Department heads ensure that public servants understand the role of ministerial staff

- Ensure that ministerial staff as well as public sector employees are covered by whistleblower protection legislation.

To these I would add that post-separation provisions could be enacted and a limit on the numbers and roles of ministerial staff be considered. We need to accept that twenty-first century ministers will obtain political advice from staff, but we cannot accept that this role extends to directing public servants and acting without the knowledge of ministers, as these actions are far from consistent with the principles of responsible parliamentary government.

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.

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.

 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?