A Promise from the Heart II

Sometimes election campaigns can become frustratingly predictable.

Candidate crops up at a location that is either relevant or (if you're lucky) metaphorical.  The announce X millions for this or that, take a few questions that usually have nothing to do with the announcement, and the media toddle off the write about the announcement or whatever minutia is distracting them at that time.

It's rare to see a politician jump up and say "This is how we will do it BETTER" - it's all about spreading about the pork, thus perpetuating the idea that all the public care about is cash, and damn the implementation.

It often reaches the point where papers publish a "gauge" of the amount of spending promised, as if it is the sheer size of the promise rather than its brilliance (or lack thereof) that should define its value.

Moving on.

The next category of O'Farrell promises I wanted to look at was what he, into the "Contract with NSW", called "Return to Quality Services".

It continues the focus on "frontline services" which seems to me to be one of the sillier media/politician creations. I don't doubt the importance of police who are actually "on the street" - but what use are they without the people that train/equip/support administratively?  Is it reasonable to say that a "frontline officer" is ALWAYS better than a backroom employee?

Of course not. I'm sure the same goes for nurses - if they can't do their job because the guy who orders the drugs got sacked, what bloody use are they?

I'll have a look at them all individually:

Impossible to assess. Which was no doubt the intention.

This is covered in the budget speech, where the promise is in fact exceeded by some margin

Next?

This is met in part.  In fairness, one can't just summon teachers out of fresh air - they need to be trained, attrition needs to be reduced and a place to put them needs to be found.  But no complaints as yet.

The integrated Transport was, as I indicated previously, has been created.  As for the extra express services, I've looked and have found no evidence at all that this has been done, nor have I found evidence that things are happening.

That said, the plan may be to introduce them when the long-overdue Waratah's hit the tracks - it would make sense that the extra capacity makes the promise feasible.

Impossible to assess

Also impossible to assess - although I suppose if their had been falls in the raw numbers there would be a case for some criticism.

The problem, really, is that promises like this are easy to keep.  They are not expensive promises (comparatively) - it's fairly easy to just throw millions are the key issues (health, education, law and order) - but it's not good governance.

The steps O'Farrell has taken to limit/cut public sector conditions since the election are a case in point - a promise like the above would be easy to keep if harsh cuts are made in other areas.  Would we be better off as a result?

We need to expect more from our politicians - not to just sign a cheque, but rather to be constantly searching for better ways to do things.

That doesn't just mean more efficient (thereby pissing off the unions) - it also means searching for "Best Practice" to make sure our limited resources achieve the best outcomes available.

I'm by no means on top of the Gonski reccommendations, but I understand they go a whole lot deeper than needing $5 billion more per year (although you'd be forgiven for thinking that, given the media coverage).

How wonderful if, next election, rather than just making promises that offer to throw money at this problem or that, a government or an opposition offered to do something differently, or take the challenging job of restructuring something to make it better.

It can be a tough sell, because of vested interests - but if NSW is going to be the best it can be then it needs to be done.

All Quiet on the Labor Front

New South Wales politics has been a little slow recently.

Since the election we have seek Kristina Keneally stand down (as expected) and see John Robertson ascend (as expected).

An orderly changeover.  Picture from The Courier Mail

The changes brought by the Liberal party have, for the most part, been comparatively minor, especially when it is considered that the Coalition is back in power for the first time in 16 years.

The campaign slogan was "Real Change for NSW" - but we have seen precious little change since the election.

That is, at least in part, because the Coalition was fairly circumspect about what they would do once in power.  A politically sensible strategy - why raise expectations beyond what was necessary to secure victory?

Having promised so little, all they need to do to win a second term is avoid pissing off too many people.

That said, they've certainly managed to piss off a fair few people in the first 2 months

I've blogged previously about the proposed change to the solar rebate (dumb politics), as well as the mooted introduction of life sentences for cop killers (dumb policy, but at the end of the day probably smart politics, if a little populist).

Notwithstanding that, the legislation has hardly been ground breaking, and certainly don't herald a era in NSW.

The reaction from Labor to these changes was, for the most part muted.  There is no way Labor could come out against the cop killer law for fear of enraging the police union, nor could they say too much about the solar scheme given that O'Farrell was trying to fix the mess they created.

Yesterday, however, O'Farrell announced that there would be reform of the wages and conditions of public sector workers.

On one level, this is straight from the conservative playbook - restraining wages growth and reducing what the Coalition would call beaurocracy.

The odd thing about the policy is that, as best I can tell from the press reports, wages growth will be limited to 2.5% unless productivity savings can be demonstrated.

This has a marked similarity to the policy that the Labor party had in place in the year before the election.

That said, the Coalition policy does go further in that it also centralises a lot of power with the finance minister and reduces the role of the Industrial Relations Commission

The problem NSW is that the government's wage bill is enormous, and it is growing unsustainably.  Something needs to be done to control it.

This may be the issue that finally gives Robertson something to get angry about. Given his background (union headkicker, on one reading) this is right up his alley.

Up to now, Labor have for the most part been missing in action.

That wasn't a stupid strategy.  Labor has needed to keep their head down for a while - for a time at least, nothing said would get any traction.  They needed to wait until the first letters to the editor appeared saying "If I had known this I would never have voted for the Coalition."

It may be that Labor thinks that this is the policy to attack on.  They will undoubtedly have the support of the union movement - Unions NSW are apparently already launching a campaign against the changes.

Even this issue  is a tricky issue to attack, because, put simply, there does need to be a measure of wages control in the NSW public sector. O'Farrell would do well to remind the public that this is their money, after all, and he has a responsibility to spend it wisely.

That said, this kind of issue is right in Labor's wheelhouse, and it is likely that most people won't remember the Labor policy.  No doubt all will be forgiven at least as far as the union movement is concerned.

The first MP booted from the new Bearpit was booted today after "raising her voice"  over this issue.

Cherie Burton, booted today.  Picture from the Tele

Hopefully a sign of Labor getting the groove back on.  Should be interesting.