In recent weeks, I've been watching the climate protests and the non-response by the government with a kind of resigned weariness. It frustrates the bejesus out of me that people on both sides get so worked up politically about an issue which is really a question of science, and should therefore be left to scientists and other experts to deal with.
I genuinely don't understand what people hope to gain by blocking off streets in the CBD and shouting a lot outside the Victorian parliament. Raising awareness of the issue? I hardly think it's possible to raise it any more seeing it's all that media on both sides of the divide ever seem to talk about. All this sort of protest seems to achieve is to provide ammunition to Fox News who want to paint anyone who thinks action should be taken on climate change as rabid socialists who want to destroy the economy. Which of course is patently untrue.
I generally try and avoid getting into discussions about climate change, because I find when I try and adopt a rational and logical approach to the issue, I either get shouted down by zealots on the right who think the whole thing is a UN conspiracy, or by zealots on the left who want an immediate end to coal mining and air travel. There's no point getting into an argument with someone whose position on something is based on faith and emotion instead of reason. No matter how many times you patiently explain that 2 + 2 equals 4, if someone insists while banging the table that it equals 3 or 5, it's just better to nod politely, smile nervously and move on.
It did however get me thinking how difficult it must be for governments to formulate effective policy on this or any other important matter right at the moment. That's not to say that governments aren't culpable for failing to provide leadership and vision - they are - but at the same time it is a tough ask to govern a populace that has become so polarised and has generally taken leave of its senses. However, there may be a way for governments to work around the problem and enable them to implement their policy agenda, and that is by outsourcing the more politically charged areas to independent government authorities or tribunals.
This isn't a new idea of course, but when its implemented judiciously, it can be quite effective. Three obvious examples come to mind.
The first is town planning. Ordinarily this is the preserve of local councils, but when it became apparent that local town planners would invariably go to water when faced with hordes of strident NIMBYs and reject otherwise eminently sensible development proposals, the state governments established independent tribunals who would be empowered to make the final determination on planning applications. This of course neutralised most of the NIMBYs whose dedication to the cause didn't go so far as spending money in court, so as a result developers can now be reasonably confident that they will get an outcome that sits within the planning guidelines - even if it takes longer than it should.
The second is the Reserve Bank of Australia being made independent of the government and being granted the power to determine monetary policy. Decoupling decisions on interest rates from the political process has proven a masterstroke and is one of the key reasons why Australia has enjoyed 28 years without a recession and avoided the extreme boom-bust cycles of the 1970s and 1980s. As a result, its now hard to make any case anywhere in the western world for this power being returned to the government. Could you just imagine what would happen if someone like Donald Trump had control over interest rate settings? It would be an unmitigated disaster.
The third is more local in nature, but nonetheless one which proved a great success and it was the Queensland Government setting up an authority to oversee the 1988 Expo. Headed by Llew Edwards, the authority was given sweeping powers to acquire land and generally do whatever else it needed in order to make sure the site was ready on time, and thereafter, operate the site during the 6 months of the event. As someone who lived in Brisbane at the time, I can testify that the Expo was a huge success and was instrumental in transforming the city from being a poor cousin of Melbourne and Sydney to being another landmark Australian international city. However without the ability to bypass the usual problems of dealing with Parliament by setting up the authority it's doubtful that the site would have been ready on time, or if it had, it would invariably have been compromised.
You can't help but think what a better outcome we would have had on energy policy if the government had just said, "you know what, this NEG thing is just too hard, let's just set up an authority". The problem with leaving it in the government's hands was that instead of it being about the policy itself - which no-one with a balanced point of view could say was objectionable - it became about Abbott, Dutton and the other loony right faction members wanting to knife Turnbull, and about the Labor state governments not wanting to agree to a Coalition proposal. That, despite the NEG now becoming part of Labor policy !
On the other hand, if the policy formulation was outsourced to an independent body, not only would you have been able to get people who knew what they were talking about involved in the process, but you would strip out most of the politics and put the focus on nutting out the different issues. It's one thing for a Labor premier to take potshots at Josh Frydenberg but entirely another for them to do the same when they are dealing with a respected businessperson like Gail Kelly or Michael Chaney. You also have to wonder if the British would not just have been better off empowering a Brexit authority to go work out the details with the European Union instead of trying to work through a prolonged and divisive Parliamentary process that shows no signs of ending any time soon.
You could argue that doing this sort of thing takes power away from the government (and therefore, notionally, the people) and places it in the hands of unelected officials. But really, in this day and age, will anyone really care? Citizenship education has become so poor in the western world that when Trump tries to ride roughshod over institutions like the Federal Reserve, Congress and the FBI, or Boris Johnson illegally dissolves Parliament, people aren't horrified but actually cheer. Also any academic arguments about the stripping away of democratic process would probably be countered by the much more effective policy outcomes that would result.
It's inevitable that any independent bodies set up by the government will have their detractors and that people will sometimes not like what they do. The Murray Darling Basin Authority is a classic example. However we live in a time where the expressions: "There's no pleasing some people" and "You can't please everyone all of the time" have never been more apt.
Politicians need to recognise this, and if they don't have the gumption or political will to confront opposition head on and get done what needs to be done, then they need to have the self-awareness to recognise this and find another way. They could do a lot worse than engage a bunch of independent people who know what they are doing and can just get on with what they have to without having to explain themselves to Alan Jones or Leigh Sales every other day.
And you know what, the country would probably be a whole lot better off for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment