Voters have a right to transparency and accountability

WHEN it comes to public funds being spent on private enterprise projects, the old “commercial in confidence” response simply isn’t good enough. We have a right to know how much of our money is being spent and why, writes Mike O’Connor.

THE two words most abused by government are transparency and accountability.

Our elected leaders place their hands on their hearts and declare these twin principles to be their guiding lights while in practice they substitute them with secrecy and subterfuge.

At a media conference announcing a decision by Qantas to establish a pilot training facility at Toowoomba’s Wellcamp Airport, Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk was asked how much the Queensland government had promised to contribute to the project.

“That’s commercial in confidence” she said, blithely batting away the question with more than a hint of smugness.

That, as far as the government is concerned, is that. As electors we have no right to know how much of our money has been contributed towards a private enterprise facility.

Why? Because the government doesn’t want us to know.

It’s the Bjelke-Petersen “don’t you worry about that” syndrome.

Qantas surveyed a number of sites before settling on Toowoomba so there would have been competing offers from other cities around the country.

Queensland obviously offered the most attractive deal, so how much have we paid?

Qantas CEO Alan Joyce and Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk announcing the pilot training academy at Wellcamp Airport in Toowoomba.

It’s not the amount of money that’s the issue but rather the arrogance of a government that presumes it can decide what we should know and what we shouldn’t.

The state government’s actions in releasing 72 annual reports late on a Friday night preceding a long weekend shows the contempt in which the public is held.

The reports listed the usual litany of its failures to perform as well as the news that an already bloated public service continues to grow at twice the rate of population growth, making a mockery of the government’s promise to keep it within this limit.

It was left to the Deputy Premier Jacki Trad to defend this by saying there was no absolutely no ulterior motive in the late night release of the reports.

One can only presume she was pressed into service because she is more skilled at defending the indefensible than the Premier who when on the defensive, prefaces all remarks with “Let me be quite clear….”.

On hearing this, it is generally safe to presume that the one element noticeably lacking in what follows will be clarity.

Why is it that governments think that they are being incredibly clever in attempting to conceal the truth from the public?

It seems as if it is some sort of game played by ministers, one in which the winner is the person who manages to conceal the most information and who best convolutes the truth.

Deputy Premier Jackie Trad was forced to defend the State Government’s late night release of 72 annual reports. Picture: AAP/Aaron Bunch

What they fail to appreciate in their fixation with obscuring reality is that people realise what they are doing.

This is the great irony. Hundreds upon hundreds of state government media advisers beavering away to weave a cloak of competence and accountability while people at home just shake their heads in despair at their antics.

From where, I wonder, does the presumption come that people are so stupid and naive that they will believe what is served up to them?

The absence of protest marches does not mean that voters are content to be taken for granted.

It is more likely to indicate that political obfuscation is the standard of behaviour that they have come to expect.

Half truths, subterfuge, misrepresentation? Hey, it’s just another day. It’s business as usual in politician land.

Party leaders then pore over the results of the latest public opinion poll and try and work out why there is such widespread disenchantment with the major political movements.

How would people react if just for once a minister stood up and was honest with the people he or she has sworn to serve?

What would the electorate think, for example, if Transport Minister Mark Bailey said that despite his best efforts Brisbane’s suburban railway system continued to be a disaster due to the intransigence of the unions and poor bureaucratic decision making but that he was doing his best to fix it?

Transport Minister Mark Bailey. Picture: AAP/Aaron Bunch

He would, I think, be applauded for his honesty and be rewarded by greater patience on the part of those forced to suffer the rail system’s failings.

It won’t happen, of course, for within minutes of any such outpouring of truthfulness, the unions would be on the phone to the Premier demanding he be sacked from cabinet.

I’m not suggesting that in the case of the Qantas pilot training facility, the government should not have made a financial contribution.

What I am saying is that the public has an absolute right to know what it will be.

The phrase commercial in confidence is merely used as a cloak.

The Office of the Queensland Information Commissioner says “in the interests of openness and accountability, it is desirable that business with government agencies be conducted in a way that will stand up to public scrutiny. Confidentiality and commercial in confidence clauses should not be used as a matter of course.”

Too frequently, politicians are more inclined to embrace the philosophy of British government minister Jim Hacker in the BBC political satire Yes Minister.

“I don’t want the truth,” he tells his staff. “I want something I can tell parliament.”