Malcolm Farnsworth ably sums up some of the key reasons why the LNP’s installation of Campbell Newman as ‘Alternative Premier’ equates to a contempt for parliamentary and representative democracy at The Drum.
NB: Previous LP discussion here.
Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas
Larvatus Prodeo was an Australian group blog which discussed politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
Thank you very much for posting this article. It is well written and absolutely what has happened is a dim chapter in Australia’s history.
Campbell will need both to be elected at the State election, and then elected by his parliamentary colleagues before he becomes the parliamentary leader. What’s the issue?
Probably right but they are in opposition so it makes no difference.
PeterTB: as a Queenslander, I feel a little bit of anger at the lack of choice afforded me. One of the two major options is so FUBARed that all of their 34 MLAs have piddled themselves, rolled over and shown their bellies for Cut and Run Campbell.
It’s not that I’m a swing voter, but it would be nice to be tempted to change every now and then.
The other reason is that democracy is already a joke in Qld and has been since Joh was in power. The more things change the more they stay the same
Well, the argument is that the Opposition leader is an actual position in parliment, with a purpose and increased salary. A key position in any westminster government. What is found to be audatious is that an unelected official from the party can assume the role without being elected to parliment and solely by the say so of party machine men. This is a problem as technically the role of opposition leader is really vacant until the election is over (one way or another).
The counter argument is that he has been endorsed by the opposition caucus (however ill advised), technically ouside parliment he cannot draw the wage or wield the position in parliment without being elected and that opposition ‘business’ is still being handled by the ‘official’ opposition leader Jeff Seeney with decisions being passed between the two (certainly worrying, but at the same time unelected party officials often interfere in parlimentary business from afar). And there are at least some cases in other countries where simmiliar arrangements have existed, but usually with not as much mess.
Well, that’s the summary at least.
The most stionging point that Farnsworth made is that all 34 LNP MPs (presumably including Springborg and Langbroek) agreed they weren’t up to the job of leading the state. If you have to outsource leadership, that’s a pretty damning commentary on the talent pool.
One might ask how the LNP talent pool came to be so thin, in their own estimation.
I don’t have a problem with it. Clearly it doesn’t contravene any laws or our constitution, and hence can be done. He’s not a political outsider, and while I hate party politics in local government, I believe he carries political leadership experience that will serve him well in his new role. I am relieved for the people of Queensland (and I am one) that we will not see Bligh coast to an election victory that not so very long ago looked highly unlikely – if she wants it she can earn it with policy and serious debate on the issues.
I don’t think this is a case of personality politics. Some might be more persuaded to vote LNP with Newmann as leader, perhaps not. But the cards are down. Let them play out.
Jesterette.
Spot on.
Again, I’m more puzzled by the message that the need for Newman’s leadership is great.
Just not great enough that we’d give him one of our safe seats in a bye-election.
Meh. ALP conferences tell the party MPs how to vote all the time. Is this substantially different?
Lefty E
Its a flood thing.
Bligh was toast before the flood. Her good performance saved her.
Campbell’s good performance negates that.
Its perception.
In the US the President is a directly elected outsider who doesn’t have to be a member of congress. In reality all recent Presidents have been members of congress, vice presidents or governors but this is not a requirement. Even more important, all the cabinet are outsiders appointed for skills learned outside of congress.
The US system is attractive because it allows the president and cabinet to be selected from a large pool of cabinet. (Think about the talent pool on both sides of your state parliament. Now tell me there isn’t a need for outside talent?) This doesn’t mean that the US system doesn’t come with problems but lack of talent usually isn’t one of them.
The Lord Mayor of Brisbane is also a directly elected outsider. I would have said that, generally speaking, Brisbane has been well run under both Soorley and Newman.
I am strongly in favour of a few of the cabinet being outsiders, particularly in areas where what you need is someone with senior management experience. I also think that there will be times when a party really needs a talented outsider to lead rather than one of a small pool of survivors. (Think NSW ALP)
What is wrong with the Newman story is that the system is not set up to allow someone like Newman to be appointed from outside to be an active leader of the party before an election. It is worth asking what needs too be changed to avoid the problems we are seeing at the moment.
Perhaps all that is needed is for the government and opposition to both be allowed 3 or 4 non-voting, paid outsiders to provide a place for something like the Newman move or to fill in skill gaps in areas that generally don’t produce MP’s.
It would be good if the discussion could stay away from the merits of the LNP and Newman.
Even more important, all the cabinet are outsiders appointed for skills learned outside of congress.
What, like Hillary Clinton? Not the worst Secretary of State ever, but I thought her main qualification was being the second-front runner from the same team. Or an insider like Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, who has helped the US enter L-shaped recession territory? Even Keating thought he was no good.
John D: I would not hold the US – or any other presidential system – as a model to follow. In contrast, BCC meetings are like a small parliament, and Campbell Newman gets one vote on council, just like the other 26 councilors.
All I’ve taken from this discussion is that Kim and Malcolm Farnsworth are ideologically and politically opposed to Campbell Newman. There’s nothing ‘illegal’ about the events that have unfolded and ultimately, the legitimacy of these events will be decided by Queensland voters.
Pass the smelling salts and the anti-hypertensives……
@Geoff, I haven’t said it’s “illegal”. I have, over several posts (to which I linked), explained why I think it’s dangerous.
I thought this to be a bit unimpressive, and a good argument to pick someone with experience in parliament. However, the fact he understands that it will take time to learn what he needs to at this level is a good sign.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/campbell-newman-admits-he-doesnt-understand-rules-of-parliament/story-e6freoof-1226033586302
Fran, considering we have been talking about a dwindling talent pool across parties of all stripes at a state level mostly because of a bloated political class (with plenty of federal and non-elected positions), the fact they found a leader at all is amazing. Even more so considering they have been out of power for 23 of the last 25 years and were reduced to just 15 members in the 90′s to early 00′s.
This is why the Newman stunt is bad
Why is it that the (so called) conservatives in this country become radical when it suits them?
Because they are politicians! They want the power of public office and they do things that skirt with rules to ensure that they get it. The Farnsworth article pretty much outlines this as the main point.
Like it or not, adopting the position that they are doing something undemocratic is highly partisan because ‘technically’ there is no broken constitutional convention (Always skirting, but never breaking).
It’s more about beating up on a continuously desperate LNP, that coudn’t organise the simplest of arrangements to hand leadership to a member they felt better for the role (The machine men involved in that aside, becuase the ALP and LNP are just as copable as eachother on that). That said, there may be an argument to make a constitutional change to protect the position of opposition leader, and prevent this from happening again.
I heard this guy being interviewed yesterday and in proposing to be the premier of Australia’s most Global Warming affected state to date, when asked do you support the Carbon Tax, he says ‘he believes that human activity is affecting climate but he does not support the tax gecause of its effects on families’. Well how stupid is that. Queensland families are having everything that they have worked for annihilated by destructive climate change, and Campbell Newman does not want to cause constituents any financial pain.
And yet here I am watching Kirsten Larsen talk seriously and intelligently to ultra rightwing Virginia Trioli about Australia’s future food security. This should be a massive wakeup call, we’ll have to wait to see if these people now go do some real background research. Sadly in this country it takes journalists to lead our political personalities to the water of political life, but there is no certainty that they will drink it. So if the journalists, who are in turn led by their leader, Murdoch, are on the wrong track…then every thing goes wonkey. Since Fukushima there has been a softening of the right wing background noise I have noticed.
Oh, and by the way, I don’t think the ‘beating up on the LNP’ is unwarranted, just don’t like the idea of hiding behind a constitutional argument to do so.
And there is now a high pressure system nearly twice the size of Australia sending onto the Tropical and Northern Tablelands damaging and destructive winds. Campbell Newman, you are an idiot. In my opinion. This Northern Hemisphere Summer is going to be interesting.
And for NSW just as I foresaw Mr Potato Head is announcing revamping planning laws. Read rampant property development, or the magical disappearing green space. Great.
Given the precedents in Canada and South Africa I don’t accept that this is a perversion of the Westminster system in itself, despite clearly being unusual in this country. It would be a perversion if the governing executive took leadership from outside parliament.
I agree with Lefty E and others above that the big issue here is the inability of the LNP to get talented leaders elected to parliament over the last few election cycles.
Fran Barlow @6 makes the valid point that the elected LNP MLA’s were not able to discover in their midst a member with the qualities to lead them and had to look elsewhere: a sad indictment on them all .
It would seem that Campbell Newman or his proxy will need to do some severe pruning of dead-wood, ideally before the next election.
I should say also that I’m intrigued at the difference between taking direction from an external leader (which seems to be a bad thing) and taking direction from external party members, conferences and policies (which I presume most people here would think the ALP at least should do more of). I guess the main difference is in the democratic (or otherwise) constitution of the latter, but I’d be interested if anyone could articulate this distinction more clearly.
BilB: Australia’s most Global Warming affected state to date
Please explain
You know what? This is the worst thing to come of this …
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/campbell-newman-centre-of-attacks-in-state-parliament-from-anna-bligh/story-e6freoof-1226034323827
We really didn’t need to give the amature comics of the ALP yet another excuse to approach the job of running the state with just so little respect. but that seems to be going around in seinor ranks of both parties now isn’t it.
PeterTB
I would think that this years grouped weather events in Queensland, unprecedented deluges and record cyclones, qualify Queensland as being the most destructive climate change affected state to date in terms of direct property damage (and commercial impacts). Of course Victoria’s floods and WA’s cyclone and now 30 day heat wave are also climate affect contenders, but I think that Queensland tips the scales. Looking back to Victoria’s fires it might be tempting to pick that event as being the front runner.
If you are going to argue that all of these events are not connected to climate change then I suggest that you do that quietly amoungst youself.
BilB: “I would think that this years grouped weather events in Queensland, unprecedented deluges and record cyclones, qualify Queensland as being the most destructive climate change affected state to date in terms of direct property damage (and commercial impacts). Of course Victoria’s floods and WA’s cyclone and now 30 day heat wave are also climate affect contenders, but I think that Queensland tips the scales. Looking back to Victoria’s fires it might be tempting to pick that event as being the front runner.”
So you’re putting forward only anecdotal evidence. I was kind of hoping (but not expecting) some sort of scientific rigour.
You guys “believe the science”. Right?
Well, I believe the science, but then this thread is probably not so much about that – and I’m completely over arguing with septics, so don’t even start.