Fly, Fly Away

Labor have been going on about promises a LOT recently.

 

 

 

And so they should. O'Farrell has done a lot of stuff he didn't say he would, and a lot of things he hinted or outright promised he wouldn't.

Luckily for Labor, it is a little hard to break promises when you're not in government. Most promises made during an election are made on a "When I'm Premier" basis.

The only promise I remember either side making on a "If we lose" basis was in relation to members staying on after the election.

The Coalition hammered Labor over whether Keneally and particularly Eric Roozendaal would stay on after the election. During the debate, Keneally committed that they both would:

Full story from the SMH

Late last night it was revealed that her promise would be broken.

Unfortunately for the Coalition, I don't think there is any hay that they can make out of this. Come next election, almost no one will remember or even care what someone who was premier four years before did.

With the promises and guarantees O'Farrell has broken to date, "broken promises" is probably a discussion he would rather avoid anyway.

What will be worth watching will be what happens in the by-election for the seat. Keneally is leaving the Lower House next week, so things will move swiftly.

After the Clarence by-election last year I took a close look and concluded that it gave every side something they could use, and really didn't prove much at all.

Heffron is in a very different situation.These were the numbers after last year's election:

From this helpful ABC website

The website reporting on the 2007 election still exists - it's not as pretty but the numbers are all there. Bear in mind that in 2007 Keneally hadn't yet become Premier, and had just finished her first term as MLA for Heffron.

There was a big swing against Keneally in 2011 - but the swing was almost identical to the swing for the state as a whole.

Will the Coalition be able to engineer another 7% before the by-election? It is difficult to imagine how.

The polling numbers are still very similar to the election result. True it is that the recognition of a local member who was also the Premier may have artificially inflated Keneally's vote - but that works both ways when you have a massively unpopular government being given the boot.

Given what has happened in the last few months (not least of all the changes to WorkCover), I'm expecting at least a small move back to Labor in the next NewsPoll.

To me, the seat doesn't look winnable for the Coalition. So this comment from the excellent @PrestonTowers seems pretty spot on:

Unlike in Clarence, it is difficult to see the Coalition winning the seat, and short of that it is difficult to imagine how they could spin the result a being a "win". Keneally may have broken her promise to stay, but how much are the Heffron residents going to punish the Labor candidate for that?

Not a lot, I'd suggest.

A Promise he won't Forget

Politicians break promises all the time.

Big ones, small ones, implied ones, core and non-core promises - they all get broken.

Some get broken because circumstances change. Some get broken because they are no longer feasible. Still others are broken because the person or party who made them knows that no one really cares whether it is kept or not.

Some broken promises have little or no consequence, and certainly no negative result for a government.

Core and non-core promises. Photo from here

Others can have such long-reaching consequences that the very sanity of the person breaking it has to be questioned.

Sometimes this is undeserved. Perhaps the original promise has been mischaracterised, or the perhaps media's narrative makes the promise into a defining characteristic of a politician when it had no business being any such thing.

The obvious example is Gillard and the Carbon Tax. No matter what she achieves for the rest of her time as Prime Minister, whether that be for another 18 months or 18 years, it seems likely that the title of her biographies will involve a none-too-subtle pun on the Carbon Tax. It was a single, stupid sentence on a breakfast TV show at the end of a gruelling campaign, but it has coloured the entire country's perception of her.

O'Farrell has broken a heap promises in his time, and Labor has tried to convince the public that he has broken a whole lot more.

Many of those promises are so inconsequential that he would be almost crazy not to break them.

Others are big, but don't seem to have gained much traction to date.

This most recent effort, however, is a true whopper.  And, worst of all (at least for him) there is going to be an ever present reminder of what a dumb decision he has made.

He may want to be the infrastructure premier, but if he goes about it like this then all the pain of finding money to build this network is going to be for naught.

O'Farrell campaigned hard on the North West Rail Link (NWRL) during the election. And he was right to do so - the present arrangements (tollways, large numbers of buses, constantly shifting bus-lanes, seemingly ever-present road work) is, and always was, at best a stop-gap. Heavy rail to the North-West was the only solution that was going to satisfy the new residents pouring into the area.

Just one of the hundreds of articles on the topic. Original story here

As late as yesterday, the promise that there would be direct services to the city was still on the a NSW government website promoting the line. Unsurprisingly, Penny Sharpe, Shadow Minister for Transport, had one of her minions quickly grab a screenshot before it disappeared

Today, the offending paragraph is missing

This new plan is going to make no one happy. And while it is being built, and every day it exists until the new harbour crossing is built in about 2089 (or so) it will remind the population about a promise broken.

The map at present

The original plan was for the NWRL to join up with the network at Epping (top middle), head down the new line to Chatswood (top right), and then into the city. That was the only way it could work financially - I don't think anyone was seriously suggesting that the line should connect any nearer to the city - the price-tag was already eye watering, and connecting closer to the city would increase the cost several times over.

The obvious problem that raises is that the North Shore line is a crowded one - and one where capacity cannot be increased much more. For safety reasons, there is a limit on how many trains can head across the Harbour Bridge in an hour - and we are pretty much already at that limit.

In other words, for every NWRL heading across the bridge during peak hour, a North Shore service would need to be cancelled.

Now, that problem can be partially alleviated by the fact that many people who would usually get a North Shore Service from a station south of Chatswood could hop on a NWRL service.

But, as I type this blogpost sitting on a North Shore train, I can assure you that many, many people get on North Shore trains well north of Chatswood.

Moreover, under current population planning for Sydney, councils have had to find space for new residents.  At least on the North Shore, they have been finding that space by cramming apartments blocks in and around the train line. As those block are completed, even more people are going to be heading to the station to get to work.

This is not a new problem. It has been plainly obvious ever since the line was announced.

Presumably the O'Farrell government decided that it was all too hard. We haven't yet heard accusations of O'Farrell favouring the residents of his seat (a seat which covers just about every North Shore Line station north of Chatswood, but it surely won't be long.

So what is the government's new plan? The NWRL will simply be a shuttle running between Rouse Hill and Epping.

It's an awful plan. First of all, this may deal with the problem of having to squeeze the NWRL services over the bridge - but how does O'Farrell think these people are going to get to the city? They will need to hop onto a train heading to the city via Chatswood. More services will HAVE to be put on to deal with the extra passengers.

True it is that the new plan includes a new line a few km east of the North Shore line to scoop up some areas not presently served, and plans for the much needed new harbour crossing. But these plans are over a decade in the future. Construction of the NWRL will begin during this term. Heaven knows how many terms it will taken for this new harbour crossing to move off the plans into the real world.

Photo by @sarethebear, the ABC's new NSW politics reporter

Of all the options available to O'Farrell, short of cancelling the NWRL altogether, it appears to be worst one possible.

But there can be no doubt - none whatsoever - that this broken promise is going to be one that that he is never allowed to forget. Whether he'll be forced to regret it will probably depend on whether his opponents can lift their game and make some criticism stick.

A Promise from the Heart III

This is getting stupid now.

Some of you might remember Labor's document "Barry O'Farrell's 100 Broken Promises" that I wrote about here.

It was a stupid document - when there are perfectly legitimate reasons to attack O'Farrell's government, why publish a document that clearly overreaches?  All that does is cement a belief that Labor don't really have any legitimate basis for feeling aggrieved.

Clearly the lesson was never learnt:

Document can be found here

I'm not going to spend my time going through it promise by promise - having looked through it, I can assure you that the same comments I made about the original applies: it is a document that could be damaging for the Liberals, but that attack is blunted by overreach from Labor.

A few examples:

And that's just a selection of the overreaching and, in come cases, plain misleading claims in the first 40 so called "Broken Promises".

If you're interested, you can go through the document yourself and let me know what you find.

It just baffles me why Labor would blunt a legitimate attack by what amounts to little more than padding.  When I asked O'Farrell what he thought about the original "100 Promises" document, he had this to say (read from the bottom):

I think he's right.  Perhaps if Labor spent a little more time trying to advance an alternative agenda rather than wasting time on this kind of document (which, lets me honest, no one besides wonks and jounros is going to read) Labor poll numbers might be showing a little more life.

Perhaps.

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.

A Promise from the Heart I

It's now almost a year since NSW went to the polls and unceremoniously dumped out the Labor government.


Much of the talk since then has been about the things that the Coalition changed that they never mentioned - the pay and conditions for the public service being the most obvious example.


Given that O'Farrell made as few promises as possible before the election (hence the whole blank cheque argument) there are perhaps less promises that the O'Farrell government can be held to.


You might also remember this document that purported to the 100 promises that O'Farrell had broken - I wrote about what a joke that document was here.

What I thought might be fairer would be to have a look at some of the bigger promises that O'Farrell did make and assess how he has gone in relation to those.


I'm going to start today with Transport and get to other issues as and when my schedule allows.


Transport


I've written at length about O'Farrell's ambition to the "Infrastructure Premier".  It's a noble aim - there can be no doubt that there is a major infrastructure backlog in this state, and we need O'Farrell to do something about it.


Having said that, infrastructure costs money.  Labor's solution was Public-Private Partnerships, which just generally were a bit of a disaster.


The big ticket item was always the North West Rail Link. What did he promise?

From this story

Progress?

From this ABC story

Can't argue this that, although I suppose the "promise" hasn't really fallen due yet. O'Farrell knows that if he was to break this promise then all hell would break loose, and he would be tarred with the same brush the Labor government was.

What else?

From this Crikey story

The Roads and Transport Authority and NSW Maritime have been combined in the Roads and Maritime Authority - whether it actually achieves anything remains to be seen.

The T card dispute has been settled, and in September it was announced that the integrated card would be called "Opal".

Part of the Press Release

Of course, choosing a name is a nothing step - commuters are going to want to see progress. This piece (written in February of this year) suggests that the Coalition has indicated a late 2012 roll-out - if so, this will be an outstanding development, given that the T-Card was first announced in 1996 and was perhaps one of the best and most infamous examples of Labor's incompetence.

The Coalition promised to create Infrastructure NSW - this has happened, and Nick Greiner has been (controversially) appointed Chairman.  

It remains to be seen how much concrete benefit the organisation can deliver.  Their website promises a 20-Year State Infrastructure Strategy in September of this year, which will no doubt prove interesting. 

The Hunter Infrastructure Board was given a surprising level of prominence in O'Farrell's "Contract".

Done.

Whilst I will always push for more public transport, we do need to have a functional road system.  Of course, a very large percentage of voters couldn't care less about trains and busses - they just want to see better roads.

This from the RTA website:

So?  On the whole, big tick for O'Farrell on Infrastructure promises. That said, to date most of the decisions have been cheap, easy ones - the real test will be the commitment to retain the funding when budgets get tight.

More later.

Plan, Campaign, Action!

Campaign finance has been an issue in NSW for a long time.


When lobby groups and companies are allowed to make large donations to political parties it is very difficult to accept politician's word when they say that the donations do not influence them in any way.


At the very least, these donations buy access.  More importantly, however, the look suspicious, which is almost as bad because it breeds a cynicism in politicians and their decisions, with a corresponding decrease in support and engagement.


In South Africa (where I spent the first 14 years of my life, and where it is easier to simply assume that politicians are corrupt, because the prospect that these decisions are honest decisions is too horrifying to contemplate) there is a particular phrase that I like: riding the gravy train.


A person will get into a position of power (elected or otherwise) and ride the gravy train to prosperity, to the detriment of society as a whole.

Cartoon by the brilliant Zapiro

It is easy to simply demand that political donations be banned, but the fact remains that political parties are essential to our democracy, and they need to be funded somehow. Membership fees could not possibly suffice unless they were enormous, and in a time of falling engagement in the political process this would be unsustainable.


Banning political donations (or, at least, the big ones) would also require some form of public funding for campaigns, and this will have a corresponding effect on the budget's bottom line.


Having said all that, the biggest reason that the rules have not been changed to date is the same reason we never see changes in the rules that govern the operation of parliament and the appointment of the speaker - these changes would benefit the opposition more than the incumbent. They are easy to complain about in opposition but there is little motivation to take action once in power.


The exception to this rule is when the government is almost assured of a defeat - much of the planning can then take place with a view to an expected time in opposition. NSW was of course in this position for much of 2010.


This lead to NSW Labor introducing changes in October 2010 that: 

• limited donations to political parties at $5000
• limited donations to individuals at $2000
• limited a candidate's campaign expenditure to $100 000, whilst a party could chip in a further $50 000, and
• limited upper house party expenditure at $1.05 million

What infuriated the Coalition at the time was the fact that third parties were able to spend up to $1.05 million.  Given that there are 22 unions affiliated with the Labor party, this in theory would allow those 22 unions to spend a total of $23 million on a campaign.


What O'Farrell's complaint conveniently ignored was the fact that there are a number of 3rd parties closely affiliated with the Liberal Party who would be able to take advantage of the same "loophole".


In any event, this was no doubt at least in part why, as part of his 100 Day Action Plan, O'Farrell committed to "Enact Campaign Finance legislation that includes restricting political donations to individuals".

From the cover of what no doubt was a glossy brochure

On the Liberal's website, he commits to, amongst other things:

You will note that this makes no explicit reference to third party spending, which is more than a little concerning, and perhaps suggests that he was not ignorant of the fact that the Liberal Party is probably as well placed to take advantage of the "loophole".


The above quote comes from a post on their website dated 6 October 2010.  An earlier post (on 9 September 2010) is phrased differently, committing the Coalition to:

You will note that the promise to cap election spending by "other groups including unions and employer groups" was dropped from the list in the October posting.


Now, that may be a simple question of brevity, because we do not know precisely what changes O'Farrell plans to make.


Ignoance of what changes are planned is of course the precise issue raised by this Herald article.


The 100 Day Action Plan promised to "enact" the changes within 100 days, a time limit which expires next week.  As parliament is presently not in sessions and will not be sitting til well after next week, it appears that this promise will not be kept, or at least not as soon as expected.

As I said earlier - it is easy to be righteous and demanding when in opposition, but once it power it can be just as easy to put off change.


This is more than a little odd, especially given the profile O'Farrell gave the mooted changes before the election. The Herald in fact claims that this is the "only one of his action plans he has failed to deliver."


In the absence of an explanation O'Farrell is practically begging the opposition and the media to speculate as to why, and the Herald obliges, saying:

Presumably only upon being contacted by the journalist, O'Farrell claimed that the reason for the delay was "due to the government agreeing to a review of NSW electoral laws, including the Election Funding Act." Apparently he wants to "ensure that any legislative changes do not conflict with the end goal of that review."


The explanation is not a convincing one. It seems far more likely that John Kaye (GRN) is right when he says that the Coalition is (ignoring the hyperbole): "so addicted to corporate cash that the government was prepared to breach this unequivocal promise to let the rivers of gold flow for two more lucrative months".


It's all silly politics, because surely O'Farrell must have seen this attack coming. All he needed to do was take some positive steps (perhaps by releasing some draft legislation for comment) and he could point to a process in place.


There was another story published by the Telegraph earlier this week that said that MPs have been complaining about O'Farrell being too focussed on the plan, to the exclusion of all else.

Robertson took the opportunity to explain what a nothing list the 100 Day Action Plan was, saying "When you set the bar as low as Barry O'Farrell did in his 100-day plan, you can hardly expect a prize when you manage to jump over it... The majority of the O'Farrell government's 100-day plan involves handing a piece of a paper to a bureaucrat."


Another anonymous Coalition MP fed a quote to the journalist about how "We have not been able to concentrate on anything else," such has been the focus on the 100 Day Plan


It may well be that Labor has engaged in some savvy politics by feeding the Telegraph the quotes earlier in the week about how piddling many of the action points were so that when the story about the lack of campaign finance change was run it would be all the more powerful.


There may well be nothing sinister in the fact that the changes have not been made yet, and it may be that case that it was just one big goal too many for the first 100 days. 


If O'Farrell is to be believed, then it was pretty poor planning that, of all the changes, he promised, this was the one that fell by the wayside.


Especially in this state, it is just too sensitive an issue to give the media a sniff.


And that's what he did.