Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 3752 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Over the last few weeks, as I have been thinking about leaving politics, I have had time to consider the things I have done well and the things I have done not so well. I have also been thinking about what I would do if I was starting in politics now, with a clean slate, but with the advantage of the knowledge and experience I have accumulated.

Although people enter politics with primary goals, they become distracted by secondary goals. The secondary goals are about how to achieve what they set out to do. If they are in opposition, they realise that the government-or, if they are in government, they realise that the opposition-stands in their way of achieving some of their goals. So they develops a secondary goal of destroying the opponent instead of destroying their ideas. This destructive instinct that becomes part and parcel of politics generates oppositional politics.

Oppositional politics has perverse effects on outcomes. It also creates perverse incentives for politicians' behaviour. The perverse outcomes are things like a huge amount of wasted energy, a growing cynicism in the electorate and the obstruction of many projects that might otherwise have been proceeded with.

Oppositional politics has perverse incentives as well. Perverse incentives include rewards for politicians for destroying the credibility of their opponents. Oppositional politics encourages politicians to obstruct the contributions that others seek to make. It discourages trust. It discourages cooperative activity. In other words, using a term that we have been using in this Assembly for some time, it reduces social capital.

Oppositional politics also generates conspiracy theories, not only about one's opponents, not only about the other political party or other political parties, but also about the public service. Every single public servant I have encountered has been working hard to deliver the best they can within their area of responsibility for the community. Oppositional politics creates the sense that politicians and particularly public servants are working to undermine the good governance of this territory.

The relationship between an oppositional system and the media is also perverse. We are all aware that the media, written and electronic, find conflict much more stimulating, as does their audience. Therefore, the role of the media becomes to encourage conflict and to ignore cooperative behaviour. You only have to look at the legislation we have passed over the last three weeks, whether it be private members business or government business, that the media have given coverage to.

The media encourage conflict. They encourage oppositional politics. They encourage politicians to enhance conflict by attacking not only ideas but also their opponents, particularly the credibility of their opponents.

People present a series of justifications for this system. The first justification is that the dialectical process leads to evolutionary improvements of outcomes and policies. This is an extraordinarily weak argument. The second justification, one which is probably stronger, is that the tension is an incentive to performance. It keeps people on their toes and makes sure they always behave appropriately. This argument is a bit stronger, but it is also a weak argument, because there are so many demonstrable adverse effects. It pushes secrecy; it pushes mistrust; it pushes cowardice.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .