FIRST BLOW FOR ACCOUNTABILITY
29.09.1989
By: CHARLTON P
First blow for accountability U NDER normal political circumstances, the Land Management Minister, Mr Harper, could reasonably expect to find himself out of Cabinet. The parliamentary public accounts committee has found that $30 million in drought relief could have been saved during the past seven years and, for two of those years, Mr Harper was the responsible Minister. As well, the committee found that Mr Dan Daly, the public servant whose memorandum led to its investigation, was moved from the head of the drought secretariat without justification. It was clear during the committee's hearings that it was Mr Harper who ordered Mr Daly's removal. The three non-National Party committee members believe that Mr Harper should be sacked although predictably the three National Party members said Mr Harper had acted ""properly'', an explanation which does not seem to match the facts of their findings. If Mr Harper acted ""properly'', why did the three National Party members sign the report?
These are, however, not normal political circumstances. Mr Cooper's Ministry, just days old and with an election looming, is under immense political pressure. The new Police Minister, Mr Lester, is making heavy weather of his complex portfolio; Mr Cooper clearly would baulk at sacking a Minister he appointed less than a week ago. But in light of the committee's findings, Mr Cooper's perseverance with Mr Harper is surprising. Certainly the way he has administered his responsibilities has been below the standard taxpayers have a right to expect. As both Attorney General and Justice Minister, and as Primary Industries Minister, Mr Harper's attention sometimes seemed diverted. He has not been on top of the job.
Yesterday, Mr Harper declined to make any substantive answer to the committee's findings, preferring to shelter behind the excuse of legal advice. While it is true that Mr Harper has begun legal proceedings, this does not absolve him of Ministerial responsibility for the manner in which he administered his portfolio and in particular, the manner in which the drought relief scheme was administered.
If ministerial responsibility is to mean anything in Queensland (and increasingly, it seems to mean very little) then Mr Harper has to shoulder responsibility for the abuses which have been going on and which have been exposed, first by Mr Daly's timely memorandum, and then by the committee's investigations and report. It is not sufficient to claim, as one National Party committee member argued, that Mr Harper took over the portfolio during a difficult time and had to make decisions ""on the run''. The committee's report revealed a systematic disregard for the drought relief guidelines and an unwarranted degree of intervention by the Minister.
In a radio interview last week, Mr Harper said people were not interested in listening to what he called the ""true facts'' of the matter, although he admitted that drought relief had been paid to people who did not qualify. Mr Harper presumably is hoping the whole matter will go away. But it will not disappear easily. The public accounts committee's first examination of government spending has revealed serious anomalies and political interference. If this is typical of the Queensland Government's approach, it is little wonder that Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen resisted a public accounts committee for so long. In this report, the committee has struck a significant blow for accountability. Mr Cooper has an opportunity to demonstrate that he believes in accountable government. He should sack Mr Harper.
