Reflections on Australian politics and policy

I came not knowing much about Australian policy or its political system. That’s partly because it was never really on my radar, but also because it – unduly in my view – seems to receive scant reporting overseas. To be fair I probably still don’t, but it’s been a fairly intensive time here and I’ve been fortunate to meet with politicians past and present as well as senior officials from six of the nine governments here. So, for what they are worth, here are some personal reflections on policy and politics down under…

First, it’s very clearly a new era. Like when you look back at an old photo and suddenly realise your hair cut was out of date even for then, Howard represented a bygone period, and the legacy of his time in office was as much a lack of action as taking the country in some unpleasant directions (like the migrant detention camp in Nauru).There’s now a lot of goodwill and optimism for the future, and strong economic foundations on which to realise progressive goals on health, education, the environment and fairness. On the downside too many issues were pushed into the “too difficult” box for too long and are now long overdue for attention – in particular national infrastructure, social equity, and the natural environment.

Second, the new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is an interesting and rather unusual leader but ultimately underwhelming. A former public servant, he came into power on the wave of a public desperate to come up for air and look to the future. He has made some good steps forward – on reconciliation with Indigenous Australians, on international engagement, on climate change, on investment in skills and infrastructure. Yet he’s beginning to slip into the territory of endless reviews and initiatives with no clear sense of how they will all land or fit together. Of course this view may be a little premature – he is only one year in – but with a reputation built on technocratic expertise you have to deliver or you’ll fall; and when you do it’ll be fast. Most critically, he lacks a capacity to compelling describe a vision or excite people around that. Change not from, but to.

Third, policy making and public services here are going through a real culture shock after years of relative ease and inaction. There’s much to improve on: a lack of statistics and robust evidence base; weak think-tank and research groups; sloppy policy making processes; an absence of real scrutiny and rigour. In so far as there are articulated ends for public investment there’s still an insufficient account of the means to get there. Blair may have found them late, but the ideas behind market design and user empowerment were fundamentally right. One of the biggest challenges for Rudd will be creating this ‘enabling’ policy infrastructure and capability to drive the outcomes he’s after – and it won’t come quickly or without some heavy lifting.

Fourth, all countries have imperfect governance arrangements and Australia’s is its nine-government federalism. You can obfuscate into the language of vertical fiscal imbalance, or decree that it’s always been that way, but it is broken, doesn’t work for the challenges that Australia faces, and needs to be fixed. The proposed National Partnership Payments won’t solve it, are disingenuous, and will leave the problem to fester for another political generation. I don’t have a perfect solution by any means but a better start would be an honest and principled discussion of where roles and responsibilities should sit and how they might be exchanged.

Fifth, a very positive feature here, and also a good thing about having states, is that policy is made much closer to the community. They are more involved in decisions; policy makers have more regard for the genuine outcomes of policy and not just whether it is theoretically pure and tractable; and politicians devote their time and effort to understanding individual stories and experiences. Just to take one example: there’s much the UK could learn for its next spending review from Queensland’s Toward Q2 work on how to engage, involve and communicate priorities to the public.

Sixth, the policy challenges are unsurprisingly very similar to the UK. Both countries struggle with how to ensure all regions and citizens benefit from a more globalised and knowledge based economy. Both look to prevention, early intervention and personal responsibility to address rising expectations and demands on public services. Both are committed to addressing climate change, and weigh up difficult tradeoffs in how best to transition to a low carbon world. And both the British and Australian public cite quality of life, family and community as the most important things in life yet their politicians jostle to find the appropriate narrative and tools to reach them.

Yet there are also some subtle differences. The most pressing social challenges are here found in extremely remote areas, and this brings with it distinct service delivery challenges not found in the UK. Moreover, Australia’s economy and population are growing much faster than the UK, with consequential upsides and a need to manage changing hotspots like on congestion and infrastructure. Finally, a more balanced and diversified economy than Britain’s, policy makers down under ponder about Australia’s economic future and what balance for risk and reward to target.

But overall I’m left with an impression of optimism and of a country and policy environment that isn’t hostage to a past and has great opportunities to forge new directions. All of which means there’s much to watch in the future…

Territories and democracy inaction

I’ve always been a little confused about the difference between a state and territory (or provinces and territories in Canada). I guess they are mostly quirks of history: with the more powerful regions of countries getting the more autonomous state and province title at point of federation, and the weaker or newly emerging ones being left with some inferior 'territory' status.

For the most part it seems to make little difference. For example, the Northern Territory here in Australia have their own legislative assembly under delegated powers from the Commonwealth. And, although they only get to send two senators to the Commonwealth Parliament (unlike the founding States which get to send twelve each) this is pretty fair in terms of per capita share. They did also get a chance to become a state in 1998 but turned it down (mostly because they didn’t want to give the then Chief Minister more power and platform, but also because existing states determine the conditions you join on and it was perceived they weren’t getting a fair offer).

But in other ways it does create two quite distinct classes of citizen. One notable example is the Northern Territory intervention, where the Federal Government used its legislative powers to bring radical change in welfare, law enforcement and land tenure rights that it couldn’t do in the States.

A second example I discovered today is a peculiar discrimination in voting rights. Australia has a constitution, and it can only be changed by referendum. Since 1977 Northern Territorians (as well as people from the Australian Capital Territory) have been allowed to vote in referendums. But for a bill to pass it must achieve what’s called a ‘double majority’: in other words get a majority of both the national vote, and a majority of the States. (There’s actually a more bizarre ‘triple majority’ rule that can apply, where anything that affects a particular state has to receive a majority in that state).

Because they aren’t states, votes in the two territories only count for the national vote. So if say three states plus the two territories formed a majority to pass a bill, and it won the national vote, it would still fail because it needs four states to say yes. A version of this last happened in a 1984 referendum on terms for senators: it had the popular majority of Australians, plus two states and two territories but was blocked by the other (smaller) states. Indeed, this double majority rule is one reason why only 8 out of 44 referendums have ever been passed along with Australian’s relative conservative tendency to limit the role of government. More to the point it’s a very disingenuous way to have been given voting rights back in ’77 and, if perhaps not a daily bind for residents of the territories, does maintain a unjust second-class of citizenship.

Learning the wrong lessons from crisis

One of Australia’s leading progressive think tanks, Per Capita, are holding their annual conference in Brisbane this week. It’s on ‘market design’ – in other words when, where and how to use markets to help deliver government services. It comes at a really unfortunate time though as politicians of all colours scramble to find fault with ‘markets’. Take for example Sarkozy’s recent “laissez-faire capitalism is over” speech, or the line No. 10 pushed that Brown long ago warned us that markets fail.

It would help to distinguish between at least three broad types of markets: financial markets which trade risk; goods and service markets which trade products between businesses and to households; and public service markets which provide government funded services but are not necessarily managed by government agencies (and could for example be run for profit).

Even such a simple definition shows how silly the politics has already got. When Sarkozy talks of the end of capitalism he’s beginning to slide into the goods and services territory – and to industry protection and state support policy. Even more bizarrely, the recently-dug-up speech which Brown gave at the SMF in 2003 is very much focused on the use and limits of markets in public services and is not a general theory of markets. (Amusingly it also talks a lot about the problem of state failure replacing market failure, a risk probably rising in significance daily.)

This ‘contagion’ effect is unfortunate: the financial crisis has some very specific and technical causes and shouldn’t lead us to hasty conclusions about the operation of goods and service markets (and junking long established competition policy) nor about public service markets (and putting unnecessary brakes on bringing the benefits of markets into public services when and where they can add value). In so far as there are general lessons about markets to be found from the financial crisis it’s the importance of good information for them to work effectively and of careful ‘agent-design’ (e.g. that the bank knows who the ‘right’ people to lend to are, and there’s no third party ready to benefit from misselling). But we knew all this already and the three broad market types I described each have specific features and come with very detailed theory as well as evidence and practice in how they work.

Perhaps it’s a good example of how societies – and politicians – respond to crises:

• We have to find historical precedence: so the current economic crisis is rivalled only by the Great Depression of the 1930s. (Actually it’s a poor comparison: we remember the Great Depression for the one in three who became unemployed and the almost half pushed below the poverty line, a human consequence that the current problems will have nothing to compare to, and not the fall in stock values.)
  
  
• We must all somehow be affected: perhaps this is some sort of solidarity effect, or maybe that people are perversely jealous of the attention a crisis gets. But it’s amusing that almost everyone is trying to claim relevance to the credit crisis at the moment. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve recently heard policy makers say things like “in the current turbulent times [environment/ social/ education/ insert random policy area] is now more important than ever”. Why don’t we just let the macroeconomists have their moment in the limelight and acknowledge that constitutional reform or what’s in the school curriculum isn’t the most pressing issue right now?
  
  
• Something must be done: we have to find the general lessons and apply them in all forms and in all places. So we get an equal and opposite reaction with for example politicians getting lukewarm on markets in public services. This is also a particularly common response following disasters whether natural or man-made with disproportionate reactions like with health and safety measures that represent extremely poor levels of cost-effectiveness.
  
  
• Obfuscation and denial of the root cause: a sensible reaction would be to say something’s gone wrong with (parts of) financial markets therefore we need to (1) stop this from worsening (2) limit the consequences elsewhere (3) reduce the chance of this happening again. We’re close to doing (1) now and attention is beginning to shift to doing (2) and (3) through fiscal measures and regulatory and banking reform. This will expend enough political time and effort without trying to fix all other areas of life with some element of market in. Arguably, even talking about the failure of ‘financial markets’ is far too loose a description – it is only some elements we now have problems with that will require fixing (e.g. subprime mortgages, derivative swaps) and the rest is effect on rather than cause of.
  

Anyhow I’ll be listening closely at the conference to whether (and for how long) each speaker drones on in generalities about the financial crisis and attempts to make convoluted links to other areas. I suspect the politicians will be the worst offenders...

Income inequality

Interesting paper on income inequality out this week from the boffins at OECD. Particularly worth playing with the data in the graphical package Gapminder.

The main findings include:

• Income inequality rising since the 1980s in all countries along with increased social spending to offset it. This suggests if governments start to ‘let loose’, or fail to target poverty-reducing spending, income inequality will accelerate further.
  
  
• Income inequality rising since 2000 in countries like the US and Germany but falling in the UK and Australia. I tested this out on the historical data plotting poverty against social spending since the 1980s. Each bubble represents a year; I’ve added the green lines to highlight the change in most recent years. Of the four, the US has the highest rates of poverty, then Australia, Germany and the UK. Germany and the UK have traded places with a radical drop in poverty in the UK in recent years and coinciding rise in Germany. The UK’s cut appears to have cost an additional 3 percentage points of GDP on social spending; Germany’s rise has been while social spending has been pretty constant (presumably feedback from the structural and higher unemployment they’ve suffered in recent years).
  
  


• Getting more people in work is – unsurprisingly – found to be one of the major ways to reduce poverty, although capital inequality is now more significant in the past. This must be particularly so for those house buying, share-owning Anglo-Saxon economies.
  
  
• Growth and poverty is a more mixed story. The US and Australia have been growing but with rising inequality in recent years (albeit Australia from a much lower base). The UK has been growing but with sharply falling rates of inequality (albeit still higher than Australia).

Focusing solely on the Australian and UK trends for a second this does go some way to explaining in general terms where the two currently differ in political trends. The UK has cut poverty and inequality but the rising social spending this has cost is probably coming to an end and seems to have - for the present at least - maxed out taxpayers' willingness to spend. Meanwhile, Australia has had a long period of rapid growth, though the public now appear more willing to countenance higher spending on social security and public services to improve equity and fairness. I guess we'll find out what the US electorate think very soon...

End of the week...

Sorry for the gap in blogging this week – product of a mostly wasted week that culminated in a lesson why never to try doing a job interview by teleconference (or equally when in a different time zone).

So finishing up the week here’s a pick and mix of recent themes of the blog:

• Public administration: my work on public service reform and helping set up a new Public Service Commission has come to end. Last task was writing a speech for the new Chair on priorities for the Queensland Public Service. Set in the context of the Premier’s new Q2 targets, it argues the Government will need to build higher performing organisations, get serious about leadership and skills, work more effectively across agencies and continue to build on some good public engagement work. Accompanying slides with my favourite age-grade chart here, and further comment on this in a previous blog.
  
  
• Welfare reform: looks like a big plank of the welfare reform pilots could be in doubt with legal questions being raised whether income management is in breach of the Racial Discrimination Act. While specifically about the ‘intervention’ in the Northern Territories this would no doubt have implications for the welfare reform pilots about to start in northern Queensland (although the Government don’t seem ready to concede as yet).
  
  
• Crocodiles: the croc believed responsible for killing Scot Arthur Booker is off for a breeding programme because it exceeds – by 30cm – the cut off for ‘iconic crocodile’ status. It’s one thing to keep it, but you’d think they could quietly shunt it off to a retirement facility rather than an active breeding programme.
  
  
• Bad policy: legislation in New South Wales ‘accidentally’ allows tobacco sponsorship of racing events following a supposed drafting error. Clearly no accident and a disappointingly mild reaction from Action on Smoking Health (Clive: a cousin of the British group?) who are said to be ‘disturbed’. This comes at the same time as revelations in the UK about Blair’s involvement in the F1 exemption debacle a decade ago.
  
  
• Crap politicians: more evidence of the low bar for Australian politicians – a probe into Andrew Stoner’s comments that Federal MP Alby Schultz’s should be ‘blindfolded and shot at dawn’, and a new Committee being set up to find ways to punish bad behaviour in Parliament. Ultimately, the Australian public don’t seem to sanction such raucous characters at the ballot box which would be the best quality-control measure. Meanwhile in Queensland revelations about Ministerial interests still developing – a not unusual story but surprising no code of conduct exist here to prevent such holdings or set down clear standards about disinvestment procedures.

The Courier Mail: A Feral Newspaper

I was reminded today of a brilliant quote from 'Yes, Prime Minister' about British newspapers and their readers:

Sir Humphrey: The only way to understand the Press is to remember that they pander to their readers' prejudices.

Jim Hacker: Don't tell me about the Press. I know exactly who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country. The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by people who own the country. The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country. The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care who runs the country - as long as she's got big tits.

Apart from just being very funny this does point to the remarkable diversity of Britain’s daily newspapers. In Queensland there is unfortunately only one daily newspaper called the Courier Mail. (One can of course get other national newspapers - which aren’t much better - but it’s only the Courier that focuses on the Queensland Government).

Disappointing then that it’s a complete rag. One case in point was a neither funny nor smart article at the weekend. It was supposed to be a satirical account of a bedroom conversation between Premier Anna Bligh and her husband Greg Withers (a senior public servant and Head of the Office for Climate Change). In the print version they had a double page spread with photo-shopped pictures of them in bed. Even if one thought that acceptable coverage for some public figures, it’s really a very crass way to attack the Premier and serves nothing but to undermine and discredit the office. And yes the Courier Mail is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation - so it is very much a regular ad hominem attack.

I’m a strong supporter of the Reithian market failure approach to broadcasting and the media. What does this argue?

• That there are various positive externalities to community and society from having breadth and depth in media, such as improved debate and dialogue in society and hence greater ability to hold governments to account and improve the policy making and legislative process.
  
  


• That the value individuals gain from being informed or educated is never fully captured in market prices, and therefore that we tend to get an under-supply of good quality public information.
  
  


• That given there are increasing returns to scale in media, an unregulated market is likely to become dominated by a small number of providers (e.g. Rupert Murdoch) who then have power to exploit market price or can dump low quality products on the market.
  
  


• That there are informational deficiencies in media – e.g. that consumers may be unable to detect better or worse quality without experiencing the full spectrum of choices.

Which points to a couple of things. First, the importance of regulation and management of the media sector to avoid monopoly and market abuse. Second, that consumers are key. If they don’t demand better quality it won’t be supplied. (And unfortunately there isn’t really a culture of intellectual rigour or scrutiny in Queensland to trigger new entry). Third, there’s a strong argument for public support and subsidy. Mind due I'm not sure any of these arguments apply that well to the case of the Courier Mail.

Still, annoying to be stuck with no alternatives...

Final Garnaut Climate Change Review

Final report of the Garnaut Review of Climate Change released today. Warning: it’s well over 600 pages in length but if you want to take it on the content page is here or the introductory chapter here.

Much better is a good one-page summary from crikey here.

I think there's much to be welcomed in the report. Clive Hamilton (author of Affluenza and sustainability activist) has done an excellent analysis of some of contradictions in the report so I won’t do an inferior duplication save to note a couple of the key points of debate.

• Garnaut recommends Australia aim for a 10% reduction on route to a 550ppm trajectory but go into next year’s Copenhagen conference pushing for 450ppm. Hamilton notes this odd - not only to pre-signal your negotiating position but also to expect others to sign up to deeper cuts than you yourself have committed to. In Hamilton’s words, lowering expectations is likely to become self-fulfilling.

• Garnaut argues the 550ppm is the most prudent economic approach for Australia, yet Hamilton notes the modelling itself finds little difference in the long-run between the different targets. For example, the 0.1% in GDP growth between the 450ppm and 550ppm trajectory would result in only having to wait another two years to double GDP (2042 to 2040). Essentially, Hamilton argues that the politics (and business lobbies) got in the way of the science. Always a difficult tradeoff in 'independent reviews'.

Kevin 747

During the election campaign Kevin Rudd was labelled ‘Kevin 24/7’ for his prodigious work rate and seeming lack of fatigue. Amusingly, he’s now been dubbed ‘Kevin 747’ for his supposed too frequent overseas trips. According to one Liberal frontbencher "he’s the Prime Minister of Australia, not the emperor”, which perhaps speaks more of his personality than propensity to jet off. However, it’s a bit reminiscent of criticisms of Blair in the early days, and there's growing rumbling about the trips, so is there anything in it?

• Too many? This was the PM’s eighth overseas trip this year (and 43rd day out of Australia). That doesn’t seem too many to me – you’d expect to have to do one or two more in your first year in office to establish yourself and there have been a number of extra things in the diary in 2008 (like the Olympics, G8 which Australia were invited to as a non-core participant, and the conference of the South Pacific leaders).
  


• Too costly? I’m sure they’ll be some ‘scandal’ in due course when a journalist FOIs and reports the combined cost of the trips. But in reality it’s likely to be a pretty insignificant amount in the scheme of things.
  


• Use the telephone? No doubt he does this too on a regular basis, but establishing the personal connections is pretty vital especially when new in office.
  


• Ignoring domestic priorities? The PM has a cabinet team of 18 ministers focusing on the domestic side, so Australia’s not going to fall apart because he’s out of the country for a few days. No doubt he’ll also be taking a whole host of domestic briefs with him, and his officials will have been tasked up with things to have ready for his return. In any case, the pretext to the current trip to the US – on the financial crisis – is a good example of where foreign and domestic issues overlap.
  


• Not the role of the PM? Unfortunately there aren’t many elected emperors to compare with whether or not foreign trips are what PMs should be doing. But try the opposite – would you want a PM just sitting brooding in Canberra rather than getting out and about and bringing new ideas back to the country?

Compulsory voting

I discovered today that Australia’s well-known compulsory voting first began here in Queensland (in 1915) before being enacted nationally after the First World War. Australia is actually one of the few countries that not only makes it compulsory to vote but also enforces it, although the fines look pretty small at $20 a pop.

The arguments for compulsory voting seem to be that you get a better representation of the public (and hence presumably policies are more reflective of society), and that it ensures everyone is doing their ‘duty’.

I’m not convinced though for a few reasons:

• First, voting is a right not a duty. People might have died in defence of democracy, but that doesn’t mean you should be forced to participate in it against your will. In a liberal society you should have the freedom to opt out of decision making. Indeed, by not voting it could be interpreted as you implicitly saying you are broadly satisfied with how things are – with your right to vote a future safety valve if and when things get too bad.



• Second, if one is worried about representation there are probably better ways to increase turnout that avoid the costs of compulsory voting. Like postal ballots, e-voting, more conveniently located ballot boxes, lengthened voting periods, targeted campaigns on underrepresented groups, lottery rewards and so on.



• Third, forcing everyone to vote means the median voter will be significantly less well informed than in non-compulsory systems and may skew the sophistication of debate downwards. Imagine you lined up a randomly selected group of 100 people by order of how interested and knowledgeable they were about politics. In a compulsory voting system the median voter, and hence the level at which the terms of debate would likely revolve, would be the 50th in line. I’d imagine by the time you’re getting this far down they would be unlikely to have clue about what the parties actually stand for, the virtues of different policy approaches or perhaps even able to name any political leaders. For example, a few years ago a survey found 42% of British people were unable to name a single member of the Cabinet. Clearly, a lot of people just don’t give a damn. In non-compulsory systems we seem to be converging on around 60% of the electorate voting in a post-cleavage society. So the median voter is then the 30th in line – which is probably getting a bit closer to people who have a reasonable knowledge of what they are actually doing in the ballot box.



• Fourth, compulsory voting increases the likelihood of the ‘donkey vote’. This is where people vote solely on things like the order the candidates are listed in. A good example of this was the Werriwa by-election near Sydney in 2005. In this example, the ‘Australian’s Against Further Immigration’ Party managed to come fourth out of sixteen parties, polling a surprising 4.7% of the vote after they started top on the alphabetically-sorted ballot paper.

Australian innovations in education and welfare policy

Two novel additions to the policy debate today.


In Canberra, National Party member John Williams reveals his thinking on how to more actively incentivise return to work. According to the senator the unemployed need only be given a "sharp poking with a cattle prod" to get them back to work. In justifying what some of those damn wooly liberals might consider a little too harsh a treatment Williams argues "the family farm cannot afford to pay wages when the person never shows up for work." Quod erat demonstrandum.


More details to be found here.



Meanwhile, Queensland parliamentarian Rosa Lee Long has today put the case for reintroducing corporal punishment in schools. According to Rosa, while the current "go soft" approach has failed, a "short, sharp caning" would be much more effective. Apparently, it's a "great deterrent". More details on her proposals here.

Rapid demise of the NSW Strategy Unit

More positive feedback following my visit to the now collapsed NSW Government in the papers (see post on strategy and subsequent collapse) :


"Several sources have told The Daily Telegraph that in the government's dying days Mr Walters spent more time in Ms Meagher's office than he did at his office in Mr Iemma's newly created "Strategy Unit".

The outfit, whose four weeks of operation still sends even the most hardened political insiders into hysterics, was immediately abolished by the new Government."

Another success in spreading the brand...

Australian Politicians

More dismal evidence of the low bar for antipodean political office today…

The Police Minister in the already embattled New South Wales Government (see previous post) has been forced to resign. According to news accounts from witnesses, Minister Matt Brown:

“Stripped to his ‘very brief’ underpants” and then “mounted the chest” of fellow Labor MP Noreen Hay. He then simulated a sex act on Ms Hay, shouting to her adult daughter “"Look at this, I'm tittie-f****** your mother!”. Really quite shocking.

The Minister had been given an initial warning from the Premier, but has today been forced to resign. (Incidentally he denies the exact quote but admits the sex act).

A few other examples:

• The chair-sniffing tendencies of the former WA Leader of the Opposition, Troy Buswell
  
  
• A NSW Parliamentary punch-up in 2005 where one MP had to be dragged out of the building by the serjeant-at-arms
  
  
• The Aboringal Affairs Minister in NSW now serving a 13-year sentence for drug and child-sex offences.
  
  
• Widespread fraud and sleaze like the bungs and backhanders that led to the 2006 resignation of the Tasmanian Deputy Premier.

Update on the Western Australia election

After starting discussion of the WA election in context of the NSW debacle I thought I'd better see this through.

Where are we up to?

With Parliament hung, the three parties continue to horse-trade terms under which they'd form a coalition government. What's made it particularly difficult is the personal acrimony in WA between the Liberals (the main right-wing party) and the Nationals (a centre-right party originally known as the Country Party and more popular in rural constituencies). They have traditionally united in such circumstances (and indeed have often stood on the same ticket).

Labor have been reaching out to the Nationals for a coalition, though this is starting to look less likely (see here). A consequence of which is that the Labor leader and current Premier Alan Carpenter is about to be dumped. An amusing satire on how he got it all wrong by calling the early election he's now lost to be found here in today's The Australian newspaper.

NSW Government collapses...

So... just a week or so after I visited the Government of New South Wales and being deeply underwhelmed (see previous blog), they yesterday collapsed. I hope it's not some contagion I've brought over from the UK; the next test for that will be the Western Australia election tonight where the ruling Labor Government are looking pretty shaky despite the state coffers overflowing with resource-boom revenues.

What happened in NSW?

• They became tired. The NSW Labor Party have been in power since 1995 and have inevitably run out of steam. There was a quite palpable sense a lack of direction I picked up there.


• Unsuccessfully transitioned leaders. The previous popular party leader who had originally won the Labor party power, Bob Carr, left in 2005 after a decade in power. Morris Iemma who took over the reins (uncontested by others) never managed to successfully lead and the polls continued to head down.


• Failed to lead. For example, there's been a long running fight over whether to privatise the state's power network. The Government failed to take the argument on and instead of argue it on their terms (e.g. on the principles and evidence) they got stuck in a ideological fight with the unions. They lost.


• Allowed party infighting. The immediate trigger for the Premier's departure (along with most of the other senior memebers of the NSW Cabinet) was a failed attempt at a reshuffle between different party factions. Government without unity is always doomed.


• Mismanaged the economy. Interesting side story was the ex-Treasurer revealing how bad the state's finances were in -- but it was pretty common knowledge that NSW had long been in the red.

=================================================

-- UPDATE --

Oh dear.

The Western Australian Labor party have now lost their parliamentary majority in what's been billed as 'Labor's Fright Night'. It's now a hung parliament in WA but looks like the Nationals could be king-makers for a Liberal-National coalition. If so, it'd be the first state to fall with NSW looking likely to follow next year.

================================================

Australian Politicians (5): Troy Buswell

Australian politicians come in many moulds. Most are very entertaining. So it is today with regret that Australia bids farewell to Western Australia Leader of the Opposition, Troy Buswell.

Not quite at the same bizarre level of fetishism as former British politician Mark Oaten*, but certainly a record of survival that would make Peter Mandelson proud, Troy has over his year career in politics…

• Been caught out several times as a ‘seat sniffer’ of chairs vacated by female aides. On one occasion Troy apparently ‘groaned and writhed in sexual pleasure after lifting a chair above his head and sniffing the seat deeply’
  
  
• Pulled bra-snapping tricks on Labor party staffers
  
  
• ‘Squirrel-gripped’ (i.e. grabbed the testicles of) a fellow Member of Parliament.

Anyhow Troy today decided to quit politics to move 'onwards and upwards' in life. I supposed it'd be hard to go much lower...

(* if you've forgotten the exact reason why Mark Oaten resigned, a googling of 'shit', 'face', 'rent-boy', and 'eat' should assist)

Making the news in Queensland ...

Two Queensland news stories have dominated for over a month now. Together I think they show how difficult it is running a government in today’s media world. The first is about a sex offender, Dennis Ferguson. A repeat offender, Ferguson was released in July after the judge decided he wouldn’t receive a fair trial for his latest offense. Since then he’s spent the last month being hounded by the media and public from one safe house to another.

The second story is about a surgeon nicknamed “Dr Death” who is accused of gross incompetence while practicing in Queensland. Jayant Patel arrived in Australia several years ago, seemingly after various counts of professional misconduct in America. Employed without full checks, Patel was subsequently linked with the deaths of up to 87 patients. Fleeing back to America he was extradited back a few weeks ago and is awaiting trial. Again, there’s a good chance it’ll be thrown out because he won’t get a fair trial.

Both these stories have severely damaged the Government’s reputation in recent weeks, with them unable to gain any control. They are the sort of things that hit governments from time to time; I guess Queensland has been particularly unlucky to have both running together.

What to do? Like most others I’m pretty stumped...

• Distract with other announcements? Hard to see what would sufficiently grab the attention and in any case risks being accused of doing such would hardly win favours.
  


• Tackle head on? Difficult to see what government can actually do in these sort of situations. Any sign of interference with due process and they’ll surely get slapped down by the judiciary.
  


• Put your hands up and admit there’s nothing to be done? Yes, but the man on the street demands that something must be done.
  


• Tough it out with hard rhetoric and little action? Hmmm, maybe that’s the one.

Australian Politicians (3): Bob Hawke

The latest distinctively Australian politician I’ve discovered is a former Prime Minister by the name of Bob Hawke. The Labour PM between 1983 and 1991, he was eventually usurped from within by Paul Keating.

His major policy achievements included:

• Some substantial economic reform included financial deregulation, dismantling of trade tariffs, and floating of the Australian dollar
  
  
• Establishing Australia’s Medicare system of social insurance (or rather re-establishing under a different name the ‘Medibank’ system abolished by the Liberals)
  
  
• Some early moves on Aboriginal affairs
  

Trumping all of these however was a much earlier achievement of Hawke’s while at University. It turns out he held a Guinness World Record no less for being the world’s fastest beer consumer, gulping down a yard of ale in 11 seconds.

Hawke later claimed this enviable boozing feat was the single most important factor in contributing to his later political success, endearing him forever to a nation of beer lovers.

Only in Australia…

Anna Bligh and Political Personalities

Having a mind that unfortunately only starts working when there’s something to analyse or contrast I tend to think of politicians falling into various shapes and guises. For example:

• The ‘Fire-fighter’: the type of politician who only gets energy when dealing with crises, or when thrown into some bitter public dispute. This animal thrives on confrontation and quarrel and is a master of political tricks and deception. John Reid and David Blunkett come to mind.
  
  
• The ‘Implementer’: the silent and unassuming type of politician who quietly gets on with implementing the commands of those more senior, building a reputation for robust but unimaginative delivery. Which makes a good basis for slow but steady progression through the ranks – Alastair Darling’s a perfect example.
  
  
• The ‘Big-tenter’: the politician who strives to canvass a wide range of views and build consensus. Tends to be viewed as nice but indecisive, and probably not destined for the big portfolios. Hillary Benn perhaps?
  
  
• The ‘Party loyalist’: the politician who likes to be seen as the one with their ear closest to the party’s grassroots and a champion of the views of the man in the street. Likely to play a key bridging role between policy and party (and the accompanying baggage) and be a solid and immovable character. John Prescott played this role for almost two decades.
  
  
• The ‘Planter-shaper’: the big-picture ideas and problem-solving type of politician who develops a reputation for having the most creative and unorthodox ideas. This is a high-risk, high-return strategy and the fastest route to the top if played well. The two Millibands and Purnell are probably the best current UK examples.
  
  
• The ‘Investigator-Evaluator’: the scrutinising type of politician, always with a keen eye on finding new ways of operating. An analytical animal by nature, the investigator-evaluator politician scans for best-practice though perhaps with a view more to improving existing policy practices than the more fundamental ‘questioning the question’ type strategy role.
  
  
• The ‘Specialist’: a rare breed of politician, one who is a technical expert in their field and has generally has high levels of professional credibility. Lord Darzi perhaps falls in this category; Ivan Lewis has been cultivating a similar reputation in social care over recent years.
  
  
• The ‘Controller-dictator’: one of the worst types of politicians whose lust for power can result in controlling tendencies, monitoring all they command and control. Unfortunately, and most tragically, this can sometimes be without a reason why.
  

I’ve seen Queensland’s Premier Anna Bligh in action a few times now and I must say she’s an impressive politician. Probably a combination of the 'investigator-evaluator', 'big-tenter' and 'implementer' it’s driving a real cultural shift in the public service here towards more serious long term policy and planning. By all accounts this is in marked contrast to the previous – and successful – Premier, Peter Beattie, who I’m told fell more into the ‘fire-fighter’ camp.

Brown vs Rudd

Last week Gordon Brown marked his first year anniversary as Prime Minister. Over here Kevin Rudd is hot on his heels, coming up to seven months at the helm.

So how do these two stack up? When Gordon got a kicking in May’s local elections he said his premiership would be about a renewed focus on ‘listening and leading’.

What does listening and leading mean in this context? I’d suggest:

• Listen: have an ear for subtle shifts in the public mood, weave together competing viewpoints into your narrative, distinguish the genuine from the loudest


• Lead: set a clear direction, make tough choices, inspire party and public
  

But these aren’t the only character traits required for the job. A few others…

• Learn: okay so being PM is not an apprenticeship, but nonetheless all jobs require learning over time and this one’s no different. So if personality, policy, or presentation isn’t working a good PM has capacity to learn from mistakes, adapt and move on.
  
  
• Likable: it’d be a bad PM that pandered for day-to-day popularity. But being likable can take many forms. At his best Blair was likeable for his charisma; Sarkoszy at the start at the start at least for his boldness; Clinton for his sheer brilliance.
  
  
• Be Lucky: in its purest form luck is obviously not something within a PM’s command. But some people make their own luck. More probably some PMs are such masters of strategy that it looks to all others as though fortune is always on their side.


• Be ready to ‘Let go’: the job is huge, there are a near infinite number of issues to get involved in and multiple tiers of detail. Even workaholics can’t manage it all. It’s key to be know when, where and on what to let go and hand down to others.
  

Listen. I’d score Brown 2/5; Rudd 4/5.

(Brown’s talked a lot about ‘listening’ over the last year – whether to the Cabinet, to the Labour party, to Parliament, to the public. There’s little evidence of this actually happening though. After all when did you last see Gordon in front of a studio audience? Rudd on the other hand has made some real attempts to more systematically listen to the Australian public. For example, there’s been a blitz through a national ‘2020’ policy forum, regular community cabinets across the country and televised PM ‘question time’ formats on TV.)

Lead. Brown 2/5; Rudd 4/5

(Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of Brown’s period as PM. So much was expected from him to be the grand strategist and lead Labour into a new phase. There was probably a deal of misattribution of leadership in those early summer months of plague, fire and pestilence. It’s not completely fallen away though; he at least retains command over party and Cabinet. Rudd meanwhile has steered a very straight policy course and held his nerve to date when required e.g. on carbon trading)

Learn. Brown 2/5; Rudd 4/5

(Probably a bit too soon to say on Rudd. Though given he and most of his Cabinet are new to Government one has to be impressed with their capacity to quickly adapt to modern government. There’s little evidence of Brown learn to adapt either package or presentation.)

Likable. Brown: 1/5; Rudd 5/5.

(Many PM’s have vocal groups who intensely dis-like them, and Brown and Rudd are not alone in this. What’s probably unique in Brown is that it’s incredibly hard to find anyone who now actively likes him. At best he seems to manage grudging respect. Rudd meanwhile retains a 48 point lead as preferred PM and is widely liked.)

Lucky. Brown 2/5; Rudd 3/5.

(Both seem to have an uncanny knack of getting messages slightly wrong, timings imperfect. For example Rudd’s unfortunate words on the public service and leak over petrol price policy watching represented some poor judgment but also some unfortunate combination of events and news cycles to take maximum effect.)

Let go. Brown 1/5; Rudd 1/5.

(Together they are probably the most controlling and workaholic politicians in recent history. Rudd is still known as ‘Dr Death’ or the ‘bean counter’ in the Queensland public service for the excessive demands he placed; the ‘Stalinist’ Brown is meanwhile famous for his 4 am starts, hands-on approach and inability to devolve to others.)

Overall scores: Brown 10/30. Rudd 21/30.

Result: Yet another head-to-head victory for the Aussies. Time for unconstitutional take-over?

Australian Politicians (2): Pauline Hanson

While on the theme of former Australian politicians here's another example of the rich and varied tradition of representatives down under, although this time very much not one to be admired. It's an incredibly noxious and annoying character called Pauline Hanson.

She's the former leader of a party called 'One Nation', which as the name implied stood on a rather anti-immigration platform (as well as an anti-free trade and subsidies for farmers ticket). Representing the seat of Oxley in Queensland she quickly earned the amusing nickname of the 'Oxley Moron'. Here's a selection of classic quotes why:

• "I have done my research and challenge anyone to tell me how Aboriginals are disadvantaged when they can obtain 3 and 5% housing loans denied to non-Aboriginals" (hmm Pauline, maybe it isn't only about housing loans?)
• "I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians.... I want multiculturalism abolished" (I wonder how one actually goes about abolishing multiculturalism?)
• "Do we want or need any of these people here? I am one red-blooded Australian who says no and who speaks for 90% of Australians." (actually you don't speak for 90% of Australians or you'd have been elected rather than the actual result: 4%)
• Finally, and definitely the best quote that sums it up. Interviewer: "Pauline, are you xenophobic?". Pauline: "Please explain?"