Starve the Quangos of Money

Winning an election is not enough if unelected bodies retain the power to obstruct the government chosen by the people.

One Nation should go to an election promising to abolish the quangos and statutory authorities that exercise political power beyond effective ministerial control. Their governing powers should be returned to ministers answerable to the House of Representatives, while their essential administrative functions should be brought into ordinary departments.

But an obstructionist Senate could refuse to pass the legislation required to dismantle those bodies.

A One Nation government would then face a choice. It could spend years complaining about parliamentary obstruction, or it could use the power of the budget to turn off the money.

Restoring formal authority to ministers is only half the job.

A government can possess a power on paper and still fail to get anything done. Directions can disappear into repeated consultations, internal clearances, and processes with no meaningful end date.

A One Nation Australian Sovereignty Restoration program should therefore impose an explicit duty to implement lawful ministerial decisions.

Public servants would provide candid advice, identify legal requirements, and explain practical difficulties. Ministers would consider that advice and make the decision. Departmental leaders would then be responsible for carrying it out.

Significant directions would include an implementation timetable, a named responsible official, and measurable stages of delivery. Missed deadlines would require explanations and corrective action. Persistent failure or deliberate obstruction would carry consequences for the officials responsible.

Ministers would have effective powers to replace departmental leaders who failed to deliver, through clear statutory employment procedures.

Where legislation blocked a promised policy, the government would have to change that legislation. It could not spend a parliamentary term complaining about laws it had made no serious attempt to repeal.

This would restore Parliament’s role. Major policy choices would be placed before elected representatives, who would have to debate them, vote on them, and answer for their position.

The people’s representatives would again have to own the decisions.

An obstructionist Senate might refuse to abolish the quangos or return their powers to the House of Representatives and the government formed there. A One Nation government should be prepared to use its budget to cut their funding.

A body’s continued existence in legislation does not give it an automatic entitlement to the same annual funding forever. Where its operations depend upon annual appropriations, the government should propose reducing that funding to the minimum legally required while continuing to pursue abolition.

Take the Australian Human Rights Commission. How long could it sustain its current operations on an annual budget of $1?

That is the financial question One Nation should put before Parliament. A commission may retain its name and statutory existence, but it cannot maintain a substantial bureaucracy indefinitely without resources. The government should seek to end its discretionary programs and new funding commitments, meet unavoidable legal liabilities, and withdraw the money supporting its continued expansion.

The budget must account for existing funds, binding contracts, statutory payments, and any revenue a body receives outside its annual appropriation. Defunding would restrict its operations while the government pursued the legislation needed to complete the job.

The Senate cannot itself increase an appropriation or amend a bill funding the ordinary annual services of government. It can request changes or reject the bill. That means a government proposing deep cuts must be prepared for a confrontation over supply, the legislation that authorises government funding.

Let senators explain why they are prepared to block government funding to preserve particular commissions and boards. The government should name the bodies, publish the costs, and make every senator’s position clear.

A refusal to pass abolition legislation should bring a second contest over money. One Nation should arrive in office prepared to fight both.

In exchange for restored authority, ministers would lose the excuse that failure belonged to someone else.

A minister with the power to direct a department would be responsible for its delivery. A government that transferred authority back into its own hands would have to accept the consequences of exercising it.

Ministerial directions and progress against implementation deadlines should be published, subject to legitimate confidentiality requirements. Parliament would scrutinise the decisions and their execution. Voters could judge the results.

If a policy failed because it was badly designed, the minister would answer for it. If implementation failed, the minister would have to correct it or explain why it remained uncorrected.

The power to govern and the responsibility for governing would finally sit in the same place.

That is the opportunity One Nation should seize. Public anger needs an answer more substantial than another promise to listen. It needs a government capable of acting upon what voters have said.

Laura Tingle captured the frustration created by disappointed expectations in her essay Great Expectations. But citizens should not be lectured into accepting a political system that takes their money, seeks their votes, and then pleads helplessness.

British historian David Starkey explains why changing the government can leave that frustration untouched: the institutions holding power survive the election. His challenge is to change those institutions so the people elected to govern can actually do so.

Australians should be able to identify who made a decision, see whether it was carried out, and remove the government responsible if the result is unacceptable.

Elected politicians decide. The public service implements. Parliament scrutinises. The people pass judgement.

One Nation should make restoring that chain of responsibility its governing mission.

“There is no such thing as public money; there is only taxpayers’ money.”
– Margaret Thatcher