The state of democracy in Queensland

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.