Sky rail protesters' election threat over Vic government's plans
Angry protesters have taken their fight over the sky rail project to the Premier's office (Video courtesy Seven News Melbourne).
PT1M32S 620 349"... how I came to enter, I cannot well say, being so full of sleep, whatever moment it was I began to blunder, off the true path." - The Inferno of Dante (translation by Robert Pinsky).
Daniel Andrews hasn't yet entered the gates of hell. Far from it. But like Dante – who would later enter a portal taking him through nine circles of suffering – the Premier looks to have stumbled into some "tangled and rough" woods. And like Dante he may well be wondering exactly how and when he came to blunder from the "true path".
For the past couple of months the state government has barely had a good day, let alone a good week.
The anniversary of Andrews' November 27 election win seemed to mark something of a turning point. Indeed, for the past couple of months the state government has barely had a good day, let alone a good week.
Under pressure: Premier Daniel Andrews. Photo: Justin McManus
In December the government was buffeted by a report from the state's Auditor-General finding Labor's decision to abandon the East West Link cost taxpayers more than $1.1 billion, "for little tangible benefit".
Then there were the continuing allegations of union malfeasance that forced former factional warlord Cesar Melhem's resignation as Labor's upper house Whip.
And just when things seemed to be calming down, the V/Line debacle forced one-quarter of the state's regional trains from the tracks because of concerns about excessive wheel wear and failed boom gate closures.
Kevin Rudd. Photo: Nic Walker
Meanwhile, negotiations with the opposition to sell the Port of Melbourne seem to have a ground to a standstill, bringing into doubt billions of dollars worth of funding for Labor's signature level-crossing removal program.
Then there was the sky rail public relations disaster, in which hundreds of angry locals were told on a Saturday night of a massive new rail viaduct just hours before it was made public in the media. The plan itself may represent a good solution to a difficult problem, but it was poorly handled.
The government has also been riven by damaging internal leaks. Most recently, for example, the Herald Sun reported on a dumped cabinet proposal for a new public sector watchdog to scrutinise state MPs and their taxpayer-funded staff.
Ted Baillieu. Photo: Paul Jeffers
When political cracks form they often start out as hairline, making them difficult to detect. But unless they are dealt with, they can quickly render a government structurally unsound, at which point it is often too late. Just ask Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Ted Baillieu, Denis Napthine and Tony Abbott.
There are, however, early warning signs common to governments on the cusp of stumbling onto the wrong path. The first is the presence of low level grumbling from the backbench (or more seriously from the frontbench) about the leader's office. Such complaints were common immediately before the Rudd, Gillard, Baillieu, Napthine and Abbott governments descended into hell.
The complaints tend to take two forms: either the leader's office is seen as excessively controlling and arrogant; or it is seen as incapable of making decisions, leading to administrative blockages and bottlenecks.
Tony Abbott.
The Abbott government was most frequently accused of the former, with claims Abbott's chief of staff, Peta Credlin, had corrupted the cabinet process with heavy-handed, unilateral decision-making.
For the Baillieu government, it was the latter, with claims of a "culture of secrecy and paranoia" in the leader's office, inherent structural problems and decision-making paralysis.
Andrews, ominously, is being dogged by both types of complaints – albeit in a more muted form and from a very specific dissident faction. But the complaints are real, and have the potential to progress into something more serious if unheeded.
Julia Gillard. Photo: Nic Walker
Part of the problem is that Andrews' well of goodwill was never very deep. Unlike Bill Shorten, Andrews has never been buttressed by the architecture of the Labor Party, because he comes from a minority left faction. That has left him dependent on dominant right factions – in opposition and government.
This structural problem for Andrews was partly mitigated by his historic election win, which gave him legitimacy and an opportunity to assert control. The danger for Andrews is that old Labor Party tensions could now be resurfacing as political problems emerge.
The second warning sign is a growing tendency to sacrifice accountability and transparency when political pressure is applied. The Abbott government, for example, came to power promising strong processes – including rigorous benefit-cost analysis – for assessing state funding proposals for major projects.
But not long after the 2013 federal election it became apparent the process for doling out federal cash for infrastructure had become ridiculously politicised, with the key battlegrounds in western Sydney and Queensland claiming a disproportionately large share. As a report from the federal Auditor-General later found, Abbott rushed to hand over $3 billion of East West Link cash to the former Napthine government despite "clear advice" from the public service that the project hadn't been justified and wasn't ready. The whole process was a disgrace.
The Andrews government has not sunk to the same lows, but there are some worrying signs. Labor's sky rail plan, for example, was rushed out with no public business case and little public consultation (forget the government spin which asserts that there had been a "state of the art" engagement process).
And now the government is preparing for a Supreme Court battle in an attempt to block the state's Ombudsman, Deborah Glass, from investigating the so-called rorts-for-votes scheme. One interpretation is that Labor is worried about what Glass might find, and is ducking scrutiny.
None of these things on their own are particularly significant. But together, they could be dangerous. After all, Labor is only three seats away from losing its majority. If the last election proved anything, it is that single-term governments are now possible in Victoria.
Josh Gordon is state political editor of The Age.
113 comments
More comments
Comments are now closed