The state of democracy in Queensland

In 1985, at the height of National Party ascendancy in Queensland, Professor Ross Fitzgerald commented that “just as South Africa runs like a sewer through the conscience of the world, so Queensland runs like a sewer through the conscience of this nation”.

This dominant view - which exaggerated the flaws of Queensland democracy at the time - has now given way to a rosy interpretation not far from the Smart State rhetoric of the Labor government.

But have things really changed so much? To answer this question we need to apply the same standards and criteria to assess democratic practice regardless of who is in power.

It is essential we have some criteria for assessing democratic governance. Without being too philosophical it is suggested that good democracies have three prime criteria:

1. the electoral system should reflect reasonably accurately the will of the people and there are widespread voting rights;
2. there are adequate means to assess the performance of government and processes of accountability are working; and
3. there are means to check, hold governments to account, and to recall and change them if necessary.

The basic perceived flaws of Queensland’s democracy have been taken as those identified by the 1989 Queensland Fitzgerald royal commission into police corruption and other commentators of National Party government. These perceived deficiencies also serve as a point of comparison to assess whether any progress has been made by subsequent regimes.

1. poor parliamentary practices (lack of sitting times, poor scrutiny of executive government, lack of opportunities for the Opposition to influence legislation, rushed legislation);
2. executive dominance of the legislature and all aspects of government;
3. corrupt police as evidenced by bribery and ineffective crime fighting especially in relation to drugs and organised crime;
4. distorted electoral system that is designed to keep governments in power than to reflect accurately the will of the people;
5. development and donations to the leading political party so that proper processes are not followed and public policy outcomes are distorted;
6. pork barrel politics, whereby the party in power seeks to buy support though misallocation of public resources;
7. politicised public service in senior appointments and even interference in the judiciary; and
8. excessive secrecy and a lack of freedom of information laws and administrative law arrangements to redress grievances.

There has been some progress in democracy in Queensland.

The most important reform has been the ending of the previous four-zone electoral system with its malapportionment and weightage to regional areas. Originally developed by Labor administrations during the late 1940s it was singled out by the Fitzgerald Commission as a major area of change. Subsequently, the electoral system was reformed by the new Goss Labor Government that Queensland elected, and a fairer electoral system with acceptable regional variations now operates.

Electoral reform was also extended to local government and a range of anomalies in that area were removed. While other changes like proportional voting could have been made, Queensland now has a relatively fair electoral system.

However, it is in relation to the second and third criteria where progress remains disappointing.

For instance, reforms to parliament and reductions in executive dominance of the legislature have been marginal. The number of sitting days has hardly increased. Under Coalition governments from 1970-1984 average sittings of parliament were 58 days a year. Under the National Party (1984-89) this fell to 43 days. The Goss government saw sitting days rise marginally to 50 days. Under the Beattie government (1998-2006) sitting days have been only 44.6!

There have been many procedural changes to parliament. Question-time has expanded. There are more parliamentary committees and a massive increase in ministerial statements, many of these have led to only marginal improvements. The increase in ministerial statements (now up to 18 a day) has been seen by one critic as a means to consume parliamentary time rather than to increase public accountability. There are more parliamentary committees, but they remain heavily dominated by the party in government and steer clear of controversial issues. Legislation is still rushed in during all night sittings.

Furthermore, in recent years, executive dominance of government has been extended rather than contained. For instance, the independence of the auditor-general has been threatened. Investigations by the Auditor-General into an area the Beattie Government found potentially embarrassing resulted in the Auditor-General being called in for a meeting with the Premier and the head of the Premier’s Department, while at the same time announcing a review of this particular Auditor-General by the Premier’s Department. Such actions overturned previous notions that Auditor-General was an officer of parliament, not executive government.

Significantly, the politicisation of the public service, another area singled out by the Fitzgerald Report in relation to National Party governments, has been taken to new heights by subsequent Labor and to a lesser extent Coalition governments. Space does not allow for full details of this problem, but its extent and depth should not be in doubt. Such practices undermine democratic processes.

Some case studies highlight these problems.

The recent enforced amalgamation of local government shows just what is wrong with Queensland democracy. This major policy change involved winding up half of the state’s local governments and sacking more than 700 elected councillors.

It was announced suddenly; the government had no electoral mandate for the change; the review instigated to assess amalgamations was rushed; moreover, the legislation was put through parliament in 14 hours. Furthermore, in response to councils wanting to hold local referendums on the issue, the government first sought to impose fines, and then threatened to dismiss those councils running referendums. Only federal intervention reversed this threat.

Amalgamation may be a needed administrative measure, but its implementation in Queensland was appallingly undemocratic.

So too the 2005 public hospital health crisis concerning overseas doctors highlighted problems with democratic practice in Queensland.

The Davies Royal Commission found politicisation of the health department; misuse of freedom of information processes by both National and Labor governments; and a culture of concealment and interference by two health ministers to manipulate information about hospital waiting lists and in monitoring hospital performance.

Indeed, the Davies Commission, in one of the most damning royal commission reports of a government concluded that “cabinet under an Australian Labor Party government” had acted “contrary to the public interest” in relation to the management of health issues.

Queensland has made some progress on democratic reform, but the steps have been small and the journey is far from finished. However, Queensland is not alone with these problems. Other states have just as many failings. However, what is particularly sad about Queensland is not so much the existence of the problem, but rather the lack of interest from many who were previously so vocal in their criticisms of democratic governance in Queensland. Further democratic reform will not be forthcoming unless the need for change is recognised across all parties.