SUNSHINE COAST ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL Inc.
ABN 23 500 365 569
3 Porters Lane PO Box 269 Nambour Qld 4560
Phone (07) 5441 5747
Email: info@scec.org.au Website: www.scec.org.au
Fax (07) 5441 7478
16th September 2009
Integrity & Accountability in Queensland
PO Box 15185 City East
BRISBANE QLD 4002
Fax: 07 3224 2030
integrityandaccountability@premiers.qld.gov.au
Dear Sir/ Madam,
Submission on Integrity and Accountability
While acknowledging the circumstances in which this Discussion Paper arose, we appreciate the
opportunity to comment.
The Sunshine Coast Environment Council (SCEC) Inc. is the peak environmental body for the region
with more than 50 member groups, stretching from Cooloola to Caboolture, and over 400 individual,
family and business members. Formed in 1980, SCEC has been instrumental in achieving many
positive environmental outcomes for the Sunshine Coast region. SCEC has a strong commitment to
lobbying all levels of government and working with business for optimal environmental outcomes;
therefore, SCEC has a strong role in community education. SCEC is actively working with the
Regional Councils as well as State and Federal government departments, industry stakeholders,
educational institutions such as the University of the Sunshine Coast, many other community groups
and the broader community. SCEC is also the regional affiliate of the Queensland Conservation
Council.
Overview Comments
The Sunshine Coast Environment Council (SCEC) suggests that the discussion paper is not
addressing some big picture issues.
As a regional, not-for-profit environment group SCEC has become increasingly concerned about the
extent to which democracy has been highjacked by the influence of economic interest groups on the
bureaucracy and political decision-making in this State at both State and Local Government level.
The groups concerned include the various arms of the urban development industry, the mining and
minerals processing industries, the extractive industries, the tourism industry, the road transport
industries, and the energy and electricity generating industries. These economic development
focussed industry groups, along with their peak body lobby organisations, have inordinate power and
influence in the bureaucracy and with State ministers and their advisors.
This inordinate influence has resulted in State legislation, policy, Budget programs, infrastructure
projects, urban and regional planning, and decisions on individual development proposals being
skewed towards ecologically unsustainable development and population growth, and an imbalanced,
energy intensive economy that ignores the need to respond to the significant threats of climate
change and to transition to a low carbon economy.
These economic groups, including the staff of their peak body organisations, have unparalleled
access to senior executives in State and Local Government, ministers and their staff, and mayors and
councillors. They also engage former ministers, advisors, MPs, senior officials, councillors and even
union officials as lobbyists. Examining the Register of Lobbyists reveals politicians, advisors etc from
all the major political parties, indicating that lobbying is entrenched and welcomed. These lobbyists
draw on their work experience and networks of contacts in the bureaucracy, business and at the
political level to influence decision-making. The scope for cronyism, nepotism and corruption is
staggering.
By comparison, representatives of non-economic sectors (including environment groups) and
members of the general public find it extremely difficult to get access to senior bureaucrats and
political decision-makers to get their messages across. While Community Cabinet meetings provide
an opportunity to raise matters with Ministers, advisors and senior officials, the infrequency and time
constraints make this a token mechanism for gauging community viewpoints on issues.
State and Local Governments engage in extensive public consultation and submission processes on
a diversity of matters. However, the economic interest groups have usually had their greatest
influence prior to material being released for comment, and there is little prospect that submissions
and lobbying from non-economic sectors will have any influence of the final outcome. There is
certainly no transparency and accountability in whether and how public submissions have been
addressed.
The upshot is that in Queensland economic interest groups have great access and influence, whereas
non-economic sectors, the general public and by extension voters are marginalised and
disenfranchised.
The outcome of SCEC’s participation in consultation processes on a host of issues is so slight that we
have begun to question whether it is worth spending the time, effort and resources to continue doing
so. Many environmentalists have come to the conclusion that direct political protest actions will be
more effective.
This is a sign that democratic processes in Queensland are once again failing, as they did in the
Bjelke-Petersen era, and that the marginalised and disenfranchised will need to take to street protests
to confront the State Government and the flawed decision-making system it operates.
Parties that win Queensland elections claim an electoral mandate to do and not do exactly whatever
they want. The absence of an upper house of Parliament in this state which is capable of acting as a
house of review and a check on the lower house exacerbates the integrity, accountability, corruption
and inordinate influence issues such as those raised above.
A major principle of ecologically sustainable development (ESD) to which Australian governments are
supposedly committed under international conventions is that the public should be consulted about
their future and determine their future.
However, in Queensland the people have been denied the opportunity to choose the future they want
because only the economic interest groups are being listened to. Instead, the public is forced to
accept an unsustainable “growth” agenda peddled by the economic interest groups, their lobbyists
and the politicians and parties they have co-opted into their agenda.
In the case of SEQ and coastal Queensland the economic interest groups have succeeded in
imposing an unsustainable “growth” agenda in which there is unrestrained population growth; rapid
over-development; destruction of environmental values (e.g. Koalas and their habitat); loss of the
liveability and the quality of life factors of residents; an inability of State and Local Government to
provide and fund the infrastructure and services required by the existing population let alone the
forecast population growth; and unsustainable demand on resources (e.g. the proposed Traveston
Dam).
Public opinion polling on the Sunshine Coast and in SEQ has consistently identified public
disapproval of unsustainable population growth and development, which the political decision-makers
ignore.
Issues with the State’s planning, development assessment and environmental impact
assessment legislation
The Integrated Planning Act and the Sustainable Planning Bill
Under this legislation Labor State Governments have progressively withdrawn planning and
development assessment powers from Local Government and effectively made the Department of
Infrastructure and Planning into the equivalent of a State Planning Authority and given the Minister
concerned an unprecedented range of discretionary powers to determine where and how specific
development will occur and how development assessment will be done. The effect is that DIP and the
Minister directs Local Governments to accommodate “X” population in “Y” dwellings in “Z” specified
locations at “P” densities serviced ( or not) by “Q” infrastructure and services with only “R”
contributions recoverable from the development applicant, and all this occurs under a planning and
development assessment regime determined by the State, not Councils and their residents. Whether
the Local Government and its residents want the population growth, development or can afford the
infrastructure and services they are required to deliver is irrelevant. Local communities and Local
Government are not permitted to determine their own futures.
It is clear that the urban development industry and various other economic interest sectors have
succeeded in the Labor Government introducing legislation that is biased towards unrestrained
growth and development, with strong development applicant biases (which are anti-community and
anti-environment in many respects), and in which DIP and the Minister determine where and how
growth will occur in a way that lacks transparency and accountability ( but is ripe for nepotism,
cronyism and corruption of the kind being identified in NSW and alleged in Queensland).
The State must review its existing and proposed new planning and development assessment
legislation to :

rectify the pro-development and pro-development applicant biases

hand control back to Local Government and local residents

focus the legislation on genuine ecologically sustainable development outcomes

remove the Ministerial discretionary powers and/ or introduce appropriate transparency and
accountability mechanisms for those powers

improve public consultation processes and public submission and court appeal rights and
influence on outcomes

introduce transparency and accountability measures regarding designation of land for urban
development in local and regional planning processes.
A major issue is that Premier Bligh has appointed as Minister for Infrastructure and Planning a person
who has previously worked for the Property Council and had only recently entered Parliament before
being given this ministry. Given the extraordinary standard and discretionary powers the Minister has
under IPA, the Sustainable Planning Bill and the State Development Act, and the Minister’s previous
employment in an urban development industry peak body, there must be issues for the State to
address regarding the capability of this Minister to perform his portfolio functions in an objective,
impartial, fair, unbiased way without conflict of interest issues and in a way that best serves the
overall public good. The very appointment of such a person creates a perception of development
industry control over the government and risks that powers and personal networks might be abused,
irrespective of whether there is any substance to support such perceptions.
The broader issue here is whether there is the need for a Queensland to adopt a code of practice or
protocol regarding the appointment of Cabinet ministers that takes into account their previous
employment and networks, and the implications for their suitability to fill a portfolio. SCEC
recommends such a code/ protocol.
The State Development and Public Works Organisation Act
This Act is the principal mechanism for facilitating economic development in Queensland, including
the coordination and fast-tracking of approvals for state significance development projects in
Queensland (i.e. mining and minerals processing, tourist resorts, large infrastructure projects, major
industries, power stations, ports, airports, dams etc etc).
The Act includes one of the three mechanisms for environmental impact assessment of major projects
in Qld legislation, and under the Bilateral agreement with the Commonwealth it is used to satisfy
Commonwealth EIS legislation requirements. This is despite the fact that the Act’s process is not best
practice EIA in many respects, including the public consultation process, and the transparency and
accountability overall.
The designation of a project as a state significance project for assessment under the Act is often
sought and welcomed by project proponents because it ensures a single, speedy insulated approval
process rather the usual series of incremental approvals from a range of entities, including the Local
Government concerned. Furthermore, in the history of this legislation, there has never been a refusal
of a major project that we are aware of, although environmental and other conditions are attached to
approvals (but these are not closely monitored or enforced e.g. Paradise Dam fish ladder), and there
is usually well founded controversy about the decision and how it was made.
The designation of state significance projects is made by the Coordinator General and one or more
ministers. How this occurs lacks transparency.
Furthermore, the Coordinator General has a classic conflict of interest under this Act which is about
facilitating and expediting approval of major economic development projects, but at the same time
having responsibility for environmental and other assessment of the project impacts.
The position is not an independent one, and the incumbent will find it difficult to function objectively
and impartially. The Act has historically fallen within the portfolio of the Premier, the minister for
industry / economic / trade development, and at present the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning.
As the Coordinator General reports to these ministers who have economic and population growth
agendas, the likelihood that a project will be refused or subject to stringent conditions is slim.
SCEC suggests that is totally inappropriate to maintain legislation that creates conflict of interest
circumstances, lacks suitable transparency and accountability mechanisms, contains a dubious
environmental impact assessment process, and offers considerable scope for corruption and abuse of
powers in the hands of the wrong officials and ministers.
Need for an independent statutory position of Sustainability Commissioner
To address some of the transparency and accountability issues identified above SCEC recommends
the establishment of a new, independent statutory position of Sustainability Commissioner supported
by a well-resourced, competently staffed office.
The Commissioner could have responsibility for :

environmental impact assessment (i.e. taking over the 3 existing Qld systems)

State and Regional “state of the environment” reports, and for the content of similar local and
regional council reports, including a set of sustainability indicators for each report application

an adaptive management system in which these reports and sustainability indicators and trends
are used to inform local, regional and state land use planning, and decisions on development
proposals in some circumstances

providing independent advice on planning and development processes, and plans, policies and
strategies for natural resources management, natural hazard management, climate change
mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity protection, sustainable industrial and economic
development etc
Need to change the Qld Constitution to establish an upper house of Parliament, with a
proportional electoral system, change the Legislative Assembly electoral system, and improve
the function of Parliament
We understand the circumstances in which the upper house of Parliament was dissolved by a
previous Labor Government.
However, the absence of an upper house to review proposed legislation and budgets and to provide a
check to the performance of the Government in the lower house and abuses of power by the
Government has proven to be a serious obstacle to transparent, accountable and effective
government in this state. The excesses of the Bjelke-Petersen era are attributable to the unicameral
system, the electoral gerrymander, and the electoral system itself.
We recommend that the Constitution be amended to :

reinstate the upper house, which should be elected on a proportional representation electoral
system similar to the Senate

ideally with a 2:1 ratio between lower and upper house members so there are sufficient upper
house members to operate committee review systems for Bills, budgets etc

the costs to the State of having an increased number of parliamentarians and support staff will
be insignificant compared with the improvements in transparency and accountability, integrity,
governance and economic and fiscal management that will be achieved.

the lower house should also have a proportional electoral system or a multi-member electorate
system similar to that in Tasmania.

this, together with the upper house proposals, will ensure that a range of small and large political
parties as well as independents are able to be elected and there is potential for the Government
to be better scrutinised and held accountable.
Lobbyists
SCEC suggests that the lobbying activities of economic interest groups and the engagement of paid,
professional lobbyists by those groups to influence decisions by politicians and senior officials has
become entrenched and widespread in this state and has had a wide range of unacceptable
outcomes, including potential corruption.
The inequity in access and influence of economic interests compared with that available to noneconomic interest groups and the general public is unacceptable in a democratic society.
We do not agree that commercial lobbying needs to be an integral part of democratic process as the
Government believes – indeed it often results in anti-democratic outcomes.
President Barack Obama has been brave enough to halt the longstanding influence of lobbyists in
Washington by banning commercial lobbyists from Congress, the White House, and administration
offices.
SCEC recommends that the Bligh Government take an equally brave step by banning all lobbying by
economic interest groups and their paid lobbyists of :

all parliamentarians

ministers and their advisors

mayors and councillors

senior officials in departments, agencies, government corporations, quangos and local and
regional councils

all staff engaged in local and regional planning and development assessment processes and
major infrastructure programming and projects

all state and local government staff engaged in procurement and tendering processes.
In the event the State rejects this proposal, we recommend as follows:

ministers, state and local government politicians, political advisors, senior officials should not be
permitted to become registered lobbyists until 8 years after they have left their position. (This
will




help ensure that the lobbyist is less able to exploit information and contacts obtained during their
career.)
they should not be permitted to lobby in any subject field they have been employed in or any
field in which discussions or through networks of contacts in the bureaucracy, business etc)
they should not be permitted to lobby any senior official or bureaucratic or political position
holder who has reported to them previously or where the lobbyist has participated in the
selection and appointment of the official or position holder concerned.
lobbying by economic interest groups, including their peak industry groups, should not be
permitted except for opportunities such as Community Cabinet meetings that are open to all.
Written submissions would become the major way for these interests to influence government.
Electoral funding reforms
SCEC recommends that :






State and Federal Governments fund the vast majority of election expenses on an equitable
basis that does not disadvantage smaller parties and independent candidates
Election campaign expenses are capped at a low level e.g. $10K for local government, $15K for
State elections and $30K for Federal elections
Electoral donations from economic interest groups of all kinds and unions is prohibited
Electoral donations from individuals are capped at $300 per election cycle, and reported to the
Electoral Commission BEFORE 15 days of the election at the latest.
The Electoral Commission publishes on a website details of individual donations BEFORE 10
days OF from the election BEING HELD at the latest
Individuals making donations have to certify that they have not received the money for the
donation from an economic interest group or a union and passed it on as their own money.
CMC Reforms
CMC is not a genuine standing Royal Commission, the conduct of recent investigations indicates
flaws in process, and the CMC is arguably under-resourced to fulfil its functions effectively.
SCEC recommends that:

The CMC conduct all inquiries in public, with opportunities for the public and media to follow
proceedings

All persons giving evidence be sworn witnesses subject to perjury laws for giving false or
misleading information, and likewise for any written material lodged with the CMC

Opportunities are given for cross-examination of those giving evidence and for directions to be
given by the CMC presiding officer to witnesses

All reports to be written and publicly available

Most written submissions to be public available

Consideration be given to reviewing the merits of a decision or action alleged to be official
misconduct or corrupt. This could be done by obtaining evidence from experts.

The CMC be required to recommend ways in which decisions or actions shown to be official
misconduct or corrupt can be rectified e.g. by over-ruling the decision or action.

The definition of official misconduct should be reviewed so that actions or decisions involving
nepotism or cronyism can also be investigated.

The CMC (and the Integrity Commissioner) be better resourced.
Royal Commission Imperative
To ensure that all matters pertaining to the inordinate influencing of government are discovered and
purged from the system, SCEC demands that the State Government must trigger nothing less
than a Royal Commission – preferably led by Mr Tony Fitzgerald, QC – into the influence of the
development industry on State Government decision-making over the past ten years.
We welcome and urge further discussion and ongoing engagement.
Yours sincerely
Narelle McCarthy
Manager
Sunshine Coast Environment Council