Table of Contents
Australians are demanding much more of their governments. The push for higher standards and better performance is strong. Expectations have been created. The consequent economic, social and environmental reform contemplated in Australia is very large. Plans have been devised that embrace nearly every sector in Australia, yet the political sector has been left largely untouched, as if only the political class at the apex do not need to be more able, of a higher calibre, more productive, more competitive, professionally more suited for the future.
The personal calibre, quality and character of political and public-service leaders matter greatly in delivering better performance. Can better political governance give Australia an improved political class?[2]
This question has even more relevance in the context of markedly smaller membership of political parties than was once the case. That shrunken membership will inevitably have reduced the numbers, quality, and variety of potential candidates for public office.
Poor governance has significant negative effects. Governance through law, regulation and process makes power subject to performance and accountability and leads to better outcomes and conduct; which is why so much effort was put into better governance in the bureaucratic,[3] union and corporate sectors, with great improvements resulting. In contrast, not much effort has been put into reforming governance in the political sector, although it must be said that at least the reporting of parliamentarians’ interests and entitlements has significantly improved in recent years.
It is not as if the Commonwealth parliament has not been asked via debate, reports, recommendations and amendments to introduce better regulation along the lines discussed in this article — it has, but the resistance remains strong. As the independent referee for this article rightly remarked, the article ‘does not provide a solution to the problem that the proposed new statutory provisions would [need to] be enacted by the current crop of politicians who are the beneficiaries of the existing system … [but] this hurdle is not insurmountable and does not affect the principle expounded in the article.’
Political parties must be accountable because of the public funding and resources they enjoy and because they materially affect the lives of all Australians. They decide the policies that determine our future, the programs our taxes fund, the Ministers that government agencies respond to and the representatives in parliaments they are accountable to.
[1] Senator for Western Australia 1996–2008. This article draws from a section of a lecture given by the author, Essential Linkages — Situating Political Governance Transparency and Accountability in the Broader Reform Agenda, 17 February 2009. This public lecture is available on-line via the ANZSOG Centre for Governance and Public Policy; and has also been reproduced in Critical Reflections on Australian Public Policy selected essays edited by John Wanna, ANU E Press, Canberra, 2009.
[2] Recent work by Andrew Murray on political governance includes two public submissions: a response to the Australian Government’s December 2008 Electoral Reform Green Paper ‘Donations Funding and Expenditure’; and to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matter’s inquiry into the conduct of the 2007 federal election (April 2008).
[3] For instance see the definition in page 13 of ANAO and PM&C 2006 Implementation of Program and Policy Initiatives: Making Implementation Matter, Better Practice Guide Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.