Leadership and landmines

State Parliament sat for just three days in August. Amid the usual exchange of barbs and jibes, the State Government introduced and passed three Bills, each establishing a Commissioner. Perhaps only of interest to political or governance nerds, these pieces of legislation do more than just establish statutory authorities. They further demonstrate the fracturing of trust at the heart of our democracy and offer insight into the psychological disposition of the government as it heads to the polls in October.

In August, the State Government passed legislation to establish three statutory bodies: the Cross Border Commissioner, the Food and Farmers Commissioner, and the Nightlife Economy Commissioner.

My first thought upon reading these Bills listed on the Notice Paper was: “Do we no longer have a Police Minister, an Agriculture Minister, or a Treasurer?”

The foundation of our Westminster system of Cabinet Government is individual ministerial responsibility. Ministers are responsible to the people through Parliament and are obligated to front the media and explain decisions made in the interests of Queenslanders, and why those particular decisions were taken.

Across the country in recent years, we have witnessed the proliferation of statutory authorities such as commissions and regulatory bodies. Governance instruments of this nature are often hailed as measures to enhance accountability, governance, and specialised oversight. In some cases, like Queensland’s Mental Health Commission, this has proven true. However, the extent to which governments are adopting this approach is concerning.

While these authorities are designed to address specific issues with expertise and impartiality, the growing number of them reflects deeper issues within the traditional democratic framework. The Westminster system, characterised by Cabinet government and ministerial responsibility, relies on elected officials making decisions and being accountable for those decisions. Ministers are expected to oversee their departments, cast a vision for their area of responsibility, and answer to Parliament and the public. This system theoretically ensures that those in power remain directly accountable to the electorate, fostering trust and transparency. However, the growing reliance on statutory authorities suggests a shift away from this model of accountability. It may sound cynical, but keeping entrenched challenges at arm’s length from the Minister responsible gives them plausible deniability and allows for the outsourcing of responsibility.

Statutory authorities, established by legislation, are meant to handle specialised areas such as human rights, anti-corruption, and environmental regulation. They are designed to operate independently of government departments, ostensibly to provide unbiased oversight and manage complex issues beyond the scope of traditional political processes.

Yet, the increasing number of such bodies reflects a fundamental erosion of trust in the existing mechanisms of governance. When governments resort to creating these independent commissions, it often signals dissatisfaction with the performance or integrity of their own departments. It can also be a tacit admission that they are either unable or unwilling to tackle sensitive or complex issues within their ministerial remit.

This trend risks exacerbating the fragmentation of democratic accountability. In a system where multiple statutory authorities operate concurrently, there is the potential for overlapping jurisdictions and inconsistent policies. This fragmentation makes it difficult to hold any single body or individual accountable for governance failures. The result is a convoluted administrative landscape, further eroding public confidence in the government’s ability to effectively manage issues.

Moreover, the increasing reliance on statutory authorities can weaken public engagement with traditional democratic processes. When issues are handled by independent bodies rather than elected representatives, the perceived importance of voting and participation in parliamentary democracy can diminish. Citizens may feel their influence is reduced when complex issues are managed outside the traditional political framework, leading to greater disillusionment with the democratic process.

The current wave of commissions in Queensland also offers insight into the State Government’s psychological disposition. Establishing statutory bodies to address sensitive and complex issues two months out from an election smacks of electoral desperation. It also mirrors the path of previous governments who, having seen their days are numbered, lay landmines for their political opponents. Should there be a change of government in October, these commissions, regardless of their efficiency, will become the responsibility of an LNP government. If the commissions fail to deliver, or if the policy context changes while the LNP has control of them, the ALP will seek to exploit the situation they themselves created by painting the LNP as heartless, ineffective, or worse. It’s a political version of the old honey trap.

It is not easy to be a Minister of the Crown. I’ve worked in those offices, and it’s not for the faint-hearted. The responsibility is enormous and would buckle most people. But once an aspirant lands in ministerial leather, there should be no place to hide and no games to play. Our democracy depends on it.