Editorial: BPIC decision cost Qld dearly
State Labor ministers were warned BPIC was problematic, but implemented it anyway, writes the editor.
The former Queensland Labor government’s decision to introduce Best Practice Industry Conditions has been widely criticised – and now it has been confirmed that ministers were told they were problematic, and they did it anyway.
Explosive leaked documents show that Annastacia Palaszczuk’s government began seeking advice on a “minimum standards” document proposed by the CFMEU in 2019.
State government lawyers issued several warnings, including that the conditions could potentially breach the Fair Work Act, the Building Code and the Building and Construction Industry Act.
Transport and Main Roads bosses also warned BPICs could add up to $192m to projects.
This is why an inquiry into the CFMEU in this state was desperately needed.
This inquiry has already touched on the BPIC situation, with Australian Workers’ Union bosses revealing last week that they too warned the government the agreement could breach the Fair Work Act.
There are many issues the CFMEU inquiry must deal with – including allegations of violence and standover tactics – but the former government’s decision to introduce BPICs in this state must form part of that scrutiny.
PERKS NOT THE PROBLEM
Federal Communications Minister Anika Wells clearly has some big questions to answer about her use of travel entitlements – and why she apparently failed to declare some free tickets. Whether she survives this drama will be Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s call.
But we urge him to be careful in his response – and to not rush to a knee-jerk reaction and kill all travel entitlements for our federal MPs.
He must learn from our political history instead – and particularly from former prime minister John Howard’s decision in February 2004 to end the taxpayer-funded pension scheme for politicians.
While the right decision in the moment politically, the glorious benefit of hindsight has shown it actually might have been his worst.
Mr Howard had been goaded into making the decision by Mark Latham, in the early months of his ill-fated stint as federal Labor leader – at the start of an election year, with Mr Howard’s Coalition trailing in the opinion polls. Mr Howard called time on the scheme for all politicians elected after 2004.
It was hugely popular at the time, and all states quickly followed suit.
But the result has been a far less impressive cohort of politicians in our nation’s parliaments.
There are two key reasons for that truth. First, those smart people who genuinely could pursue other great careers no longer see one in parliament as attractive – as the risk is not offset with a suitable reward.
That has meant that – generally – the only smart people who choose a career in politics are true believers.
This, in turn, has fuelled what is a troubling extremism of decisions around policy. Our parliaments are also less representative than they used to be – which is also not ideal.
Secondly, not having the pension benefit in place has made it almost impossible for all parties to prise out of parliament those sitting MPs who are chronic under-performers. That is because there is now zero benefit for them to leave politics.
Consequently, our parliaments are more packed than they ever have been in our modern history with bench-warmers. This is a big problem for oppositions because their MPs cannot be lured out with the lucrative promise of a political appointment by the government.
We are well aware our call for the Prime Minister to not mess with the travel entitlements system will not be a popular opinion, but we believe this a point that must be made.
The hindsight benefit relating to the pension scheme decision shows why our political leaders must be careful to not chip away too many of the entitlements provided to our parliamentarians just to hose down a political firestorm in the moment.
We agree that not every spending decision on travel that has been made by Minister Wells passes the pub test. And her failure to declare some freebies is a shocking look. She will have to take her lumps on both, as she should – because MPs should be held to account for how they use their travel entitlements.
But that does not mean the entire scheme needs reform. The rules are there, and the requirement to make public how each MP decides to use them means they are answerable to the spending decisions they make.
That the system is broken is not the conclusion that should be drawn from this affair. Being a minister is a seriously tough job. The demands it makes on the families of MPs is massive, and is not properly understood by voters.
And so it is fair enough that MPs can claim three return flights a year for family members to visit them if they are stuck away from home and Canberra for work – unless we want no MPs with families. How they use it is the issue. The Prime Minister must not forget the lessons of the pensions decision as this plays out.
Responsibility for election comment is taken by Chris Jones, corner of Mayne Rd & Campbell St, Bowen Hills, Qld 4006. Printed and published by NEWSQUEENSLAND (ACN 009 661 778). Contact details here
Brisbane needs 10 new bridges – this is where they must go
