THAT excellent documentary series, “Yes, Minister”, has resulted in at least two truisms in public administration, one on surveys and the other on inquiries.
And they are related.
On surveys, the wily Sir Humphrey Appleby beguiles the hapless Bernard Woolley into first avidly agreeing to national military service after answering a series of “neutral” survey questions and a few minutes later sheepishly disagreeing with it after answering a different series of “neutral” questions. (view video at bottom of column)
In short, a survey is not to elicit the truth, but to get the answers the Government wants, and that will depend on the questions.
So, too, with inquiries. The inquiry is not to find the best options, but to find the options the Government wants.
This week, I was telephoned by the ACT Government to answer a survey on the future of Canberra, as part of the “Canberra 2030 Time to Talk” project.
I told the inquisitor that I knew all about it as I had been asked, along with a dozen or more Canberrans including some journalists, to champion discussion and debate on the matter. I am all for discussion and debate.
So there was no need to do the survey, I said. But you can’t have it both ways: whinge about not being consulted but refuse to take the time to do surveys and opinion polls.
Incidentally, Australians are pretty good at answering genuine surveys, perhaps because the federal opt-out system for commercial tele-marketing gives us confidence that we are not wasting our time.
Anyway, the inquisitor persisted and arranged another time to call.
Among the questions was this:
“Canberra’s population is predicted to grow by 80,000 people by 2030. We need to plan for where new housing and development can appropriately occur.
Which of the following options for how Canberra might grow and change is your preferred option?”
Sir Humphrey could not have written in better. You herd the sheep down one of four slots, all leading to the same slaughter yard.
The survey presumes the traditional growth path. To be fair, the survey gives an out by inviting other comment. Anyone can do the survey at http://canberra2030.org.au/survey/. So if you are worried about tendentious questions you can at least fill out the “other comments” section.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not against economic growth – properly measured. I am all for more and better education, health care and smarter and more energy-efficient consumer durables and buildings that make our lives more fulfilling and comfortable.
It must be a nightmare to be a state or territory long-range planner when you have no control over the key ingredient – population — because that is in the hands of the Feds. But full marks to the ACT for at least trying.
Of course, the places for the extra 80,000 people have to be paid for. Agricultural land, parks and open-space will have to be sacrificed. Class sizes may have to increase. Hospital queues will lengthen. Extensive work will be needed to increase the skills base – preferably of the existing population – and to remove entry barriers to trades and professions created by unnecessarily long training requirements.
And taxes may have to be raised or at least be changed to encourage better use of resources.
To that end, the ACT Government has announced a wide-ranging inquiry into our tax system. Perhaps with the “Yes, Minister” principles in mind, the Government has chosen its inquirer: former ACT Labor Treasurer Ted Quinlan.
As Treasurer, Quinlan presided over ever-increasing property taxes and said in 2005 that he would squeeze property developers until they bled, but not until they died.
In 2003 he said reducing stamp duty would only cause house prices to rise and rejected the proposition that increasing land taxes would result in higher rent.
So we know where he is coming from, and we can have a good guess where he will go.
Maybe that is not such a bad thing. Maybe a small territory government can avoid the costs of increased population by discouraging people coming here with high taxes that result in higher housing costs. It is a bit brutal, though, on the existing population who have family and connections here and would like to stay.
But we may have to get smarter. For a start, the pressure to cut reliance on poker machine tax has rightly been ramped up by the independents having the balance of power federally.
However, the Feds are a source for other ideas. Greens leader Senator Bob Brown laughed off one of them as being on an impossible wish list. He thought that, despite forming part of the balance of power, the Greens’ policy for death duties would not happen.
Maybe not federally, but there is a good case for them in the ACT, especially if they at least partly replace gambling taxes and stamp duty.
When Queensland Premier Jon Bjelke-Petersen axed death duties in the 1970s, people flocked to Queensland. In the short term he was quite smug about the bigger tax base, but now Queensland has an immense under-investment in infrastructure.
The people of the ACT got a huge amount of infrastructure very cheaply from the Feds at self-government and many baby boomers in Canberra benefited hugely from dirt cheap land in the 1970s. Now is the time to repay – painlessly – so the infrastructure can be updated.
I got a block of land for $500 in 1970. Why shouldn’t my estate be taxed to ease the burden on future generations?
Tax generally will be fundamental to what happens in 2030. Charges for land-use changes, stamp duty, land tax, carbon taxes, and electricity and water charges will profoundly affect people’s choices on where they live and the size of their dwellings.
The tax regime is likely to have as much effect as the planning and rules and regulations about what you can build where. Also, tax will affect use of private transport and the consequent demand for public transport. Tax fuel, parking and registration more and some families will shed the second car or even their first car.
At first blush, federal population and tax action will seem to dominate things at a territory level. But given the policy paralysis at the federal level over the past decade, state and territory innovation becomes more important. So it is even more important to get surveys and inquiries right.
See Yes Minister clip:
CRISPIN HULL
This article first appeared in the The Canberra Times on September 18