There has been a lot of talk recently about ministerial responsibility. In the end, it seems to be a fluid concept that depends on how much public pressure is applied to remove a Minister rather than on any kind of philosophical template.
Which is why Peter Garrett didn’t lose his job, but lost his power and his reputation.
But there is a Minister in Australia whose idea of ministerial responsibility is so slack that it’s extraordinary he still holds his job — Victoria’s Planning Minister Justin Madden — whose media adviser’s private strategy document was mistakenly leaked to the ABC last week. In it, the hack advised how the Victorian government could halt a big development in central Melbourne while using a sham consultation process to justify the move:
“Windsor Advisory Committee report is expected to recommend that development go ahead … Strategy at this stage is to release it for public comment, as this affects the entire community, and then use those responses as reason to halt it, as we have listened to community views.”
However you cut it, the accidental release from Madden’s office has exposed the cynical, manipulative nature of ministerial politics in a way that should see the boss of that office — the Minister — given the boot.
If he isn’t, the Victorian Government is sending a clear message to the electorate about its idea of business as usual.
Justin Madden’s arcane equivocation over the leaked strategy to manoeuvre the planning process in relation to the Windsor hotel redevelopment in Victoria is straight out of “Yes Minister” This strategy document, prepared by a junior PR person in his department, in all probability reflect the duplicitous and fundamentlly questionablest activity being undertaken on an ongoing basis by the Minister.
The offending junior staffer has not been sacked. On this basis she could publicly state the basis for her actions in preparing the document. Instead she has been shifted sideways where her mouth can be kept shut. If ever we needed justification for ICAC in Victoria this is it. Junior spin doctors do not make these strategies up by themselves, they do so in consultation with senior ministerial advisers. There should be an immediate Parliamentary enquiry into this whole rotten mess, with officers of Madden’s Department required to give evidence under oath.
This embarrassing disclosure is just the “tip of the iceberg”. The PR managers/spin doctors/ministerial advisers are a taxpayer funded “skunk works” using public funds solely for the purpose of political advantage for their Minister. This means ordinary taxpayers are paying for their political dirty tricks. This so-called junior adviser must have been up to her armpits in what can only be described as appalling political manipulation of ministerial responsibilities, and instead of being sacked she has been transferred to an area where she can be kept silent. If she had been sacked there would be dozens if not hundreds of so-called public servants, (but in essence publically funded political party hacks), whose job security would be threatened if they had to actually work as public servants and not as political propagandists. Blood on the ground would have a serious effect on their willingness to continue with this misdirection of taxpayer funds for political advantage.
While I don’t disagree with the essence of either the editorial or Greg Angelo’s comment, politics is by its very nature a cynical exercise in Australia as in the rest of the world, for at least decades or centuries if not forever.
Many other careers are likewise. Advertising is cynicism with a slick haircut. A lot of banking or finance roles are so cynical as to be fundamentally immoral. Used car dealers are so cynical they’re a stereotype.
In a world where politics is as much about branding and perception as policy and decisions, of course it’s going to look ugly when the process is revealed. But we the voting public have allowed this to happen by rewarding slick advertising campaigns with our votes. It would be far preferable to have a better system, but I think that would require living in a West Wing tv fantasy.
What does seem to have been lost in this is that the spinner in question does appear to have been trying to promote public comment on a development to justify a decision she believes will have public support. Too often, developments are approved which are unpopular, and voters are irritated that their opposition to them has been overlooked. On this basis, although the text is pretty ugly, it seems to support Maddern doing his job as a Minster who’s trying to support the community and not force it into accepting developments at any cost.
Why the condemnation of Peter Garrett. What exactly did he do wrong? As far as I can see the scheme was a good one as aquick fix for unskilled labour with climate change benefits. The results were OK and much better than any previous private schemes.
What he and the government do not deserve benefit from is their very lax reaction to the climate change catstrophe that looms upon us. As the largest per capita generators of greenhouse gas and the driest inhabited contunent in the world it is absurd that we do not lead the way in measures to deal with this threat. If you want to beat Peter Garrett beat him with that.
Keith Bedford
Haha, a journalist crapping about politicians’ credibility – gold!
Or funnier yet, political PR-peoples’ credibility, ROFL.