Since the inception of modern democracy, the separation of powers has functioned as a guarantor of individual liberty and honesty in government. In 1901, the Commonwealth implemented this principle through the creation of autonomous and competing branches and agencies, each serving to keep the others in their proper place.

Standing between you and your parliament

“Our system of government is one of checks and balances,” wrote former Treasurer Peter Costello. “Checks and balances prevent us from the excesses that misguided ideas might otherwise lead to.”

But over the past two years, those checks and balances have been seriously eroded by Kevin Rudd’s obsession with centralised power and micromanaged administration.

The steady emasculation of the Australian Public Service under the current Labor Government has long been one of the worst kept secrets in Canberra. Even Kevin Rudd’s own Ministers have been sidelined by control-freaks from the Prime Minister’s Office who seek to dominate every detail of the political news cycle.

This unprecedented accumulation of raw power has become so pronounced that even ex-Labor heavyweights have expressed concerns about its corrosive effect on our democracy. The Weekend Australian recently quoted former ALP Minister Robert Ray describing the Rudd Government as “an extreme centralist outfit, bordering on a command regime”.

Peter Walsh, the Labor Finance Minister under Labor Prime Ministers Hawke and Keating, was even more outspoken, declaring Rudd to be: “capricious. He sees himself as some sort of Platonic philosopher king.”

But much more ominously, the Weekend Australian also revealed that Kevin Rudd’s intrusive tentacles were infiltrating Commonwealth agencies whose statutory role is the autonomous monitoring of government. “They are blind to our independence” said one senior official of a Commonwealth oversight body.

Rather than working at arm’s length from government to prevent mismanagement and corruption, these statutory agencies are now forced to function as political auxiliaries of the Prime Minister’s Office.

They are routinely required to warn the Government of awkward media stories and thorny issues likely to come up during Senate Estimates hearings.

The resulting conflict of interest is both obvious and undeniable. The autonomy of these agencies as independent government watchdogs has been subjugated to the Prime Minister’s demands that they advise the Government on strategies for avoiding political embarrassment.

In his megalomaniacal quest for absolute control, Kevin Rudd has bullied and intimidated statutory oversight bodies of the Commonwealth into political submission.

While this is all bad enough, the Rudd Government is white-anting Australian democracy on other fronts, as well. Three weeks ago, the Rudd Government announced a new set of rules governing the Members’ & Senators’ parliamentary Printing and Communications Allowance.

The Coalition supports genuine reforms of Parliamentary entitlements. But the fine print of Labor’s regulations has created a regime of political censorship that threatens MPs’ ability to interact with the people who sent them to Canberra.

The new regime has created an unelected committee whose task is to vet printed material put out by MPs or Senators using the Allowance. There is no avenue of appeal from its decisions.

At the heart of the problem is a prohibition on “electioneering” that is applied to commercially printed material funded by MPs’ Parliamentary entitlements, or internally produced material sent out using the Allowance.

The vetting committee has interpreted this ban on “electioneering” to forbid any strong criticism of the Government.

The rulings of this committee have conjured up a list of prohibited words that reads like something out of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four. The adjectives: Disgraceful, Reckless, Flawed, Unfair and Incompetent – just to mention a few – have all been flushed down Kevin Rudd’s memory hole. The censor’s black pen has struck these terms out of MPs’ correspondence with their constituents.

During Senate Estimates, it even emerged that copies of Hansard containing disparaging language towards the Government would also fall under the ban. Thus MPs may say anything they like about Kevin Rudd and his Ministers in a Parliament House speech, but they are prohibited from posting the official parliamentary transcript of those remarks to their constituents. How bizarre is that?

The committee’s definition of electioneering also seems to be quite selective. It appears that laudatory language that sings the Government’s praises may be deemed legitimate and allowable. As a result, these new communications regulations come across as a one way street that is all gain and no pain for Labor.

In that classic James Bond movie, villain Auric Goldfinger utters the memorable line: “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.”

I am not quite ready to accuse Kevin Rudd of deliberately subverting Australian democracy for his own advantage. Yet I have submitted a Motion of Disallowance in the Senate that would nullify these regulations.

I plead with the government to work with the Opposition to put in place a set of rules that are sensible not censorship.

Liberal Michael Ronaldson represents Victoria in the Australian Senate and serves as Shadow Cabinet Secretary for the Federal Opposition.

30 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Samuel says:

      07:10am | 20/11/09

      Maybe Michael, but absolute control for what purpose? This Government is unable to take tough decisions. It has not embraced any reforms. So its accumulation of power is a sham.

    • AJ says:

      07:59am | 20/11/09

      Oh dear, the old ‘censorship’ chestnut again.  Do we really have to roll out the same old arguments about why you can’t electioneer with public funds again when you have a large party machine and huge corporate donors?  And whilst it is indeed problematic if the Government is influencing statuatory authorities, it’s a bit rich for a Liberal to talk about misusing government for their own ends after the tax-payer funded political ads that dominated every single election you lot ran in whilst in power.

      That said, I fully expect the Labor Party to do the same thing next year, and will be disappointed about it when it happens.  And I expect the various Lib supporters on this site to cry foul whilst wearing truly humungous hypocrisy blinkers.

    • Clint Walsh says:

      08:18am | 20/11/09

      “Can’t criticise”....should be balanced with “can’t praise”. The right to say whatever you wish is fundamental. Get rid of this ridiculous change.

    • iansand says:

      08:24am | 20/11/09

      Hawke started it.  Keating refined it.  Howard developed it and Rudd continues it.

      The bad news is that politicians accrue power.  Every time some turkey writes an article like this we believe it and know that it is true of all politicians, from wherever in the cess pool they come. That would be you.

    • Barton says:

      08:40am | 20/11/09

      Wasn’t it people like Clive Hamilton and David Marr and their media mates who spent a decade telling us we lived in a brutal, secretive dictatorship, a brutopia, because we had a Prime Minister who was not from their end of the political spectrum?

      It seems the present PM is far more ego driven and contemptuous of the people, but the silence from most of the Howard haters about Rudd’s secretive, dictatorial and untruthful persona is most interesting.

    • BMJ says:

      09:09am | 20/11/09

      How can you be shocked? Left = bigger government. Always has been that way and always will.

    • T.Chong says:

      09:12am | 20/11/09

      Senator Robinson, you seem to personify the Libs inability to realise your party ,even YOUR leader were given a very hard boot in 2007. Your party lost,as they will next time ..
      For any Lib to infer that Rudd interferes with the public service is laughable. Im sure you can recall the outrageous interference that occurred under Howard.
      Remember SIEV X and “Kids Overboard”?
      Get used to the Opposition benches, you’ll be there for a while yet.

    • Russ says:

      09:40am | 20/11/09

      This seems to be the Liberals’ favourite complaint at the moment.  God forbid that you should have to pay for party political material to be sent to people in your electorate (which in your case is the whole of Victoria, right?).  As for “a senior official of a Commonwealth oversight body” spare us - you made it up, didn’t you?

    • Zeta says:

      09:43am | 20/11/09

      It’s not an unreasonable expectation that taxpayers funds aren’t spent on electioneering. That’s not censorship. Censorship is about suppression. You’re not being suppressed. There is nothing stopping you from taking your newsletter, standing on the steps of Parliament, and reading it in a press conferrence. There is nothing stopping you reading it in Parliament, under privlidge. You can take out a paid ad, in a newspaper, with Party funds. You can get ‘I HATE RUDD HE SMELLS tattooed on your forehead and walk down the street in a sash thats reads ‘RONALDSON FOR PM 2010’ while singing the Internationale and you still won’t be suppressed.

      You’re just being told you can’t use, my money, to send out newsletters for the purposes of electioneering.

      Your newsletter allowance needs to be scrapped. There is absolutely no justification for it any more. It could have been excused, right through until the turn of the 21st Century, because of some electorate’s limited media markets, and the embryonic state of internet social networking.

      I think MPs should be made to choose between their newsletter allowance, and their third electorate office staffer. No one is vetting the media releases coming out of back benchers offices for their local media markets (and nor should they), but ultimately, MPs get more dollar for dollar exposure from having full time press secretaries than they do from flicking out newsletters that no one reads.

    • Matt says:

      09:54am | 20/11/09

      I’m sorry, what? The “Rudd Government” is eroding democracy and independence of the public service? Michael were you asleep for the entire term of the previous Howard Government or did you just turn a blind eye to its gross breaches of human rights (detention of children anyone?) and deliberate attempts to silence public servant critics (Wilkie)? Shame, Michael, shame!

    • TLC says:

      10:37am | 20/11/09

      Wake up Michael, if Howard and Bush did not manage to fully control us do you really think that Rudd will?.
      If the Opposition is doing the job and if the press keep us informed the rest is up to us at the elections.
      This is why I don’t support our own Republic.
      This is why we must have free speech and separation of Church,Police and Army.

    • yornup says:

      10:45am | 20/11/09

      The title of this article made me snort gravy all over my keyboard. I also quite like how you qualified it by saying “I am not quite ready to accuse Kevin Rudd of deliberately subverting Australian democracy for his own advantage.” Have you submitted your application to the Melbourne International Comedy Festival 2010?

    • persephone says:

      11:17am | 20/11/09

      Oh for thingys sake! Yet another punch piece by a Liberal parliamentarian bemoaning the fact that they can no longer send out electioneering material disguised as information! Under rules which, I understand, have always existed but are now simply being enforced.
      And the hypocrisy is breath taking - this man was part of a Government which politicised the Public service to an extent never previously experienced, beginning with the sacking of anyone seen as too close to the previous government - compare this with Rudd, where people like Jane forgethersurname, who ran the ‘children overboard’ scam for the Howard government, are still employed.
      A government who tied up state funding in such a way that it forced the states to adopt measures against their will - including the imposition of flagpoles and ‘values’ (always loved that Australian values poster, featuring a New Zealander and two quotes from British authors, one of whom was a woman masquerading as a man. Very Australian).
      A government who smeared institutions such as the High Court - and individual judges - when it suited them - scarcely honouring the separation of powers.

    • Sam says:

      11:51am | 20/11/09

      Finally, an article worth reading!

      Michael, is it possible for an Australian to be pro Australia but against this inefficient type of democracy? Is it possible that Kevin thinks he’s doing his best for Australia by “white-anting” the components of our beaurocracy that make governing Australia such an unenviable task? How many checks and balances do you need? Isn’t it enough that the government can be voted out? And if these “independent government agencies” turned their attention to minimising corruption and collusion in the private sector (I’m refering to the useless ACCC) and produced results that please the public, then I’d be much more inclined to support you. As it is, I think Robert Mugabe could do a better job of looking after my interests than the whole Victorian state government. Our public transport alone is enough for me to turn away from the false promises of democracy and I could care less about checks and balances. I simply want results that are pleasing to me. What have you done for me lately?

    • John A Neve says:

      01:01pm | 20/11/09

      It would have been nice if Michael Ronaldson had told us what “modern democracy” was.

      As to Rudd’s power, I think it would be obvious to most people that our PM’s
      power over the last twenty years has become greater and more in line with a
      President/Dictator.

      Few people vote for candidates any more, firstly they switched tp parties, then they switched to leaders. Note the number of ex actors and sports people controling the people.

    • Haggis says:

      01:21pm | 20/11/09

      “Thus MPs may say anything they like about Kevin Rudd and his Ministers in a Parliament House speech, but they are prohibited from posting the official parliamentary transcript of those remarks to their constituents. How bizarre is that?”

      You what!

      Gagging Hansard? Good grief, Big Bro!

    • Barton says:

      01:36pm | 20/11/09

      It’s amusing that none of the Howard haters here can spell, so after the next change of govt we’ll have all their sloppy emotionalism about how the hateful Libs won’t allow the ALP opposition to criticise the govt.  Bwahahaha.

    • Me says:

      01:49pm | 20/11/09

      Interesting that my comment pointing out the realities of the rules for printing allowances was censored. It was pretty tame too.

      Talk about irony.

    • H of SA says:

      02:01pm | 20/11/09

      Shocking, the govenment politically interfering with the work of important public service departments for their own gain.

      Kinda like defence being instructed not to release any “humanising” images of refugees around the 2001 election right?

      Maybe, if your party wins government again this new found zeal for democracy will prevent you from shooting yourself in the foot by deceit of the public to creep in this time round…..maybe

    • Chade says:

      02:26pm | 20/11/09

      Comparing cutting back on letting politicians spam their electorate with propaganda material that the voters have paid for to 1984 is like comparing Howard in 2001 to the Nazis idea of racial purity - over the top and ridiculous.

      “Liberal Michael Ronaldson represents Victoria in the Australian Senate and serves as Shadow Cabinet Secretary for the Federal Opposition.”

      The Punch has finally worked out how to easily inform readers of the author’s affiliations, eh? Will wonders never cease?

    • persephone says:

      02:28pm | 20/11/09

      There are lots of things you can say in Hansard which you can’t put into print. MPs have had their little asses sued off for repeating outside parliament words that they had said in Parliament.
      Under parliamentary priviledge, MPs can say virtually whatever they want about anybody or anything without fear of legal retribution.
      Thus, every so often, an MP is challenged to repeat his or her accusations outside the chamber, with the implication that if they can’t, it’s because they’re unfounded and the MP will then be open to defamation proceedings.
      There is a story of an MP who was asked to repeat his accusations against an individual outside the chamber and refused, saying, “I stand by everything I said in there”...and was successfully sued.
      So just because something is in Hansard does not mean - and has never meant - that it can be reported elsewhere.

    • Al says:

      03:16pm | 20/11/09

      To all of you saying “what about Howard?” get over it Howard is gone - the time has come to focus on this government.

      To those of you saying ha ha you are out of government, how does that change the relevence of the Senator’s arguments?

      To those of you who say that the taxpayer shouldn’t fund electioneering I agree - but this includes the praise the ALP lavishes upon itself as well as the scorn the Lib’s heap upon them.

      Persephone - parliamentry priviledge extends to reporting what is said in parliament. You cannot be sued for distributing copies of parts of Hansard. Additionally and I could be wrong, your anecdote about the MP doesn’t ring true.

    • Patrick says:

      03:52pm | 20/11/09

      I challenge Michael Ronaldson to justify why his party or any other party should be able to use taxpayer funds, our money, to fund their political posturing, whether in government or not.

      That is the crux of this issue. You can either answer that question, or you can shut up.

    • John Ryan says:

      05:00pm | 20/11/09

      Forget about Howard yes OK, but why should you have people like this supercilious jerk lecturing us on things that the Govt of which he was part did, and he and his cohorts never said a damm word.
      Howards crimes are too many to mention here, but a lot of the Right wing Liberals should have a good look in the mirror and stop wasting everyone’s time with BS like this bloke has put up as a serious article

    • persephone says:

      05:53pm | 20/11/09

      Al

      ‘A legal expert has attacked plans to give MPs even more protection against being sued if they make defamatory comments.

      Parliament’s privileges committee is recommending, for the second time in four years, that the law be amended to extend protection for MPs beyond the walls of parliament.

      MPs have felt exposed ever since former Act MP Owen Jennings was successfully sued for $50,000 by Wool Board official Roger Buchanan.

      The high court in 2001 ruled that Jennings had defamed Buchanan when, outside parliament, he said he did not resile from claims made in parliament.’

      Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3063582/Don-t-let-MPs-off-defamation-hook-lawyer

      So parliamentary privilege does not extend beyond the walls of parliament and MPs can be sued for repeating statements made in Parliament and reported in Hansard- or even just confirming them - outside of Parliament.

    • Michael says:

      10:09pm | 20/11/09

      Years ago when “Ronno” was my local member he sent out some of his propaganda material and I was so enraged by its blatantly partisan tone that I scrawled an angry note on it telling him never to send me taxpayer-funded party-political material again, stuffed it under the door of his electorate office, and guess what? He never sent it again. I thought he’d learnt his lesson. Alas.

    • harry says:

      12:32pm | 21/11/09

      What else can you expect from a religious nut. We ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.

    • Peter says:

      07:58pm | 21/11/09

      Thankyou Kevin Rudd.  No more of allowances funded by the taxpayer to be used for propaganda against the opposing side.  Oh happy day!!

      This new ruling would be something most taxpayers have been longing for.
      You are on the wrong track Mr Ronaldson. 

      Public servants are there to give fearless, apolitical advice to their Ministers.  They are not there to cover up or allow the Minister to say “I can’t recall being told’.  The days of the Howard years are gone.

    • jed says:

      09:54pm | 21/11/09

      both parties are full on big government, if you want small government vote the ldp and ignore these liberal and labor crooks

    • Marek Bage says:

      11:41pm | 21/11/09

      I come to The Punch for sensible and balanced Conservative views and all I end up with is partisan conspiracy theories.
      As a barrister and solicitor, Mr. Ronaldson would be expected to understand the intent of the Members’ & Senators’ parliamentary Printing and Communications Allowance guidelines and champion the enforcement of said guidelines.

      Instead, we are offered and ill-conceived and partisan analysis of what is an attempt to adhere to the letter of the law.

      Mr. Ronaldson whinges that “the new regime has created an unelected committee whose task is to vet printed material put out by MPs or Senators using the Allowance.”

      Correct! And about damn time too!!
      Being an “unelected” committee means that they are not members of the elected government.
      Did you really think that we’re too stupid to have noticed that?
      Did you? really?

 

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

David Penberthy

Time to put this summer of cricket out of its misery, writes Anthony Sharwood. Hear hear! http://bit.ly/9OLM07

David Penberthy

@geoffb oh, diddums.

David Penberthy

@Adam_Sims hell yeah. the recent past of australian tennis is in doubt!

David Penberthy

Libs reckon the future of australian tennis is in doubt due to rudd's ETS. They're smoking the same stuff as screaming lord monckton #qt

Gentle jabs to the ribs

US Superbowl: now with ad breaks worth watching

US Superbowl: now with ad breaks worth watching

Usually, when it comes to watching your favourite sport or movie on television, ads are the last thing… Read more

8 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter