WHY IT IS DIFFICULT TO MAKE CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT

The Hon Rose Jackson has a lot on her ministerial plate – responsibility for some of NSW’s biggest concerns. In addition to housing, water and homelessness, Ms Jackson also is the Minister for Mental Health, Youth and the North Coast. One of Premier Chris Minns’ younger ministers, Rose Jackson comes to her portfolios with stacks of energy. For all that, she feels that the complexity of government needs a lot more willingness to work in tandem with its opposition. Rose Jackson addressed The Sydney Institute on Tuesday 2 April 2024 to open up about new ways to address complex problems in government.

WHY IT IS DIFFICULT TO MAKE CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT

ROSE JACKSON

It’s a pleasure to be here tonight with the Sydney Institute. I’d like to start by acknowledging the traditional Custodians, the Gadigal people of the Eora nation and pay respect to Elders past and present.

I’d like to thank Gerard Henderson and the Sydney Institute for the invitation to speak with you this evening. It is truly a testament to the deep commitment of Gerard and the Institute to free speech, open dialogue and the power of ideas that you would invite me – one of the oft-described (not necessarily by myself, but a title I’m not uncomfortable with) most progressive members of the NSW Labor government – to address you this evening.

Strange bedfellows? Perhaps. But this spirit and sentiment of unexpected minds meeting will form the theme of my comments tonight. I will take as my topic – why is it so bloody hard to solve complex problems in government. It will feature some admiration of the problem and some attribution of blame – but because I get particularly bored by talking about challenges and particularly excited by overcoming them, I’ll venture some thoughts on solutions.

The obvious complex problem I personally am grappling with is housing. It simply is not affordable or accessible in Sydney. Middle class people with solid decently paying jobs have lost their grasp on the housing market. The average income required to purchase a house in Sydney is close to $300,000. Forbes reported in 2023 the average income in Sydney was closer to $80,000. The nexus between working hard and a good life has been broken. This is a very sad and dangerous thing.

It is stymying our economic prosperity – people cannot live near where they work which drains productive time on one of the most unproductive of activities – sitting in traffic, or on overcrowded trains and buses. It makes people stressed and unhappy.

It also inhibits economic growth because working people are spending too much of their income on housing – meaning there is less discretionary spending on supporting a vibrant cultural or culinary scene in Sydney, or a strong retail sector or, even better, starting new businesses or investing in new skills. There is almost no money for anything fun or productive or interesting or new after property has hoovered it all up.

We are losing a generation of bright and talented young people to other states. The Productivity Commission has pointed out double the number of 30-40 year olds left Sydney than arrived in recent years. Housing costs are the principle driving factor – driving them away from our city. What a shockingly dull and lifeless place we will be if this trend is not arrested.

And this hollowing out of future Sydney is to say nothing of the consequences of housing inequality for the most vulnerable. As all housing becomes unaffordable and in particular the rental market experiences record high rent increases and record low vacancy rates, people who were otherwise in precarious but bearable housing at the bottom end of the rental market have fallen out altogether – and moved into various forms of social housing or homelessness en masse. They have fallen into a system that is intended to operate as a safety net, part of our social contract to stop spiralling and brutal inequality making our cities cruel and unsafe places to live. They have found the net full of holes and buckling dangerously towards breaking point.

So yes. It’s grim. Housing is a major and complex challenge. The type of complex challenge it is increasingly almost impossible to confront. Complex in that there is not one solution. There isn’t one program we can fund. One policy we can change. Instead of doing this, do that instead. No, confronting the housing crisis requires doing lots of things at different levels of government at the same or similar times and many of them are expensive.

I have chosen not to use this speech to outline what they are, well, not in detail anyway, no – there are plenty of opportunities for to me to do that work, what I want to talk about today is why our current political system is acutely ill-suited to confronting complex issues of this type. Things that take time to solve. Solutions that eschew sound bites. Problems that we CAN solve, but sadly not easily or quickly.

For some context, I am joining you tonight in what is a special week for the NSW Labor Government. On Thursday this week it will be exactly one year since the full ministry of the new NSW Government was announced – the next day we were sworn in to our respective positions in the NSW Cabinet. As expected, we were now tasked with addressing numerous challenges facing the state of NSW – among them being what is my top priority, confronting the housing crisis.

After a year, the luxuries of opposition are distant memories. The all care no responsibility. The lack of media interest infuriated us at the time, now the lack of scrutiny would be a welcome relief. Frustrated at not having our hands on the levers of power, now the heavy burden of actually making decisions confronts us daily. To be clear – distant memories they may be, but not fond memories. I will never forget getting into a lift with a decent but not particularly high performing Liberal Minister a few months out from the 2023 election. Polite enquiries of “how are you going?” elicited a long sigh and a tired sounding “you think you want to win but it’s harder than you think, it’s not so great”. I remember my jaw dropping open – if you don’t want the job, feel free to give it up! There are plenty of us desperate to give it a go. Twelve years in government is a long time – too long for some evidently. The fact Labor wanted it more was a major and often times overlooked factor in the 2023 State election.

So – now a lot of eyes are on us. And rightfully so. Government accountability is at the heart of a functioning democratic process. I hate the cynicism with which many in the community view politicians and the processes by which government operates.

The opinions most ordinary people have about me and the political system are deeply confronting. It is uncomfortable to recognise that most people, although they don’t know me at all and of course being a state minister very few people do, recognise me. Most people, nonetheless, have a very dim opinion of my intelligence, capacity and integrity. The only consolation is that it’s not personal – they feel that way about all politicians.

They think most of us are corrupt and the system is rigged against them. Of course, this isn’t true, imperfect as we are as individuals and defective as the system might be, most politicians are motivated by public service not self interest and they operate in a system intended to make things better – not worse – for people.

This deep mistrust makes the role of government accountability and oversight incredibly important in the work of solving complex problems.

Enter – the media.

Let’s take as accepted that politicians are flawed people, yes, but by and large they are individuals trying to take the problems of state and make them better. Surely, I can at least get agreement on that basic principle in this room? Not always succeeding of course and often, in the opinion of many, going about it the wrong way. But nonetheless trying to make good change. If we can’t accept this as a general principle, then at the very least let me assure you of my own personal drive to do something about housing.

So, what sincerely frustrates me is trying to do this work – this difficult work to find sensible solutions for the people of NSW while under the microscope of a media lens driven by oversimplified slogans, sensationalism, and soundbites.

We are living in an era defined by unprecedented connectivity. News and political content, commentary, opinion, analysis, is constantly, widely, freely available. The part of me that wants to bemoan the lack of civic education in schools, that is deflated by the fact most people don’t even know what the legislative council is let alone what the bicameral system means or the traditions of the Westminster form of government. That part of me loves the idea the news and political commentary has been collectivised, is user generated, is crowd sourced. People everywhere can share and access political content to suit their interests and priorities all the time! Power to the people!

And I genuinely find some of the opportunities for real time feedback – comments likes and shares – a valuable way of testing opinions, testing community sentiments. You aren’t speaking into the wind on social media. While you’re often speaking in a vipers nest, a cacophony of noise, but that’s society, that’s our democracy, unpleasant as it is to be called evil and depraved and stupid. Hearing feedback from people (good and bad) is part of the process. Politicians who can’t hack that are in the wrong game.

However, for the positive that comes from this radical opening up of platforms for discourse and dialogue, another part of me is very troubled by the way this transformation has fuelled the rapid rise of misinformation, political echo chambers and filter bubbles. We have been reduced to policy by sound bite – crushed to match the attention span of the modern content consumer or the character limit on a tweet.

Try explaining the nuances of development consent in the planning system or the feasibility structures that inhibit the delivery of affordable housing or how the Basel rules for international banking regulation constrain financing of new housing construction on social media. These forums are not really capable of much beyond screaming about immigrants or landlords. That’s why simple ideas like banning migrants or rent caps often have so much cache – they are simple to explain and understand. Forget that they don’t work, you can meme them so they win the online policy battle.

I am a relatively adept social media user – for a politician at least – and even I often feel defeated by the wall of loud incoherent noise when trying to engage with complex policy debate about housing on online platforms. Chris Minns once told me he deleted all social media from his phone because he felt like he was waking up every morning with someone standing at the end of his bed screaming at him. I haven’t joined him yet, but I’m extremely sympathetic to his point of view.

Is traditional media much better? Well, for starters, it is struggling more and more with market share. Young people are less likely to listen to the radio, read the papers or watch the evening news. In a conversation about using the media as a form of government accountability to stress test policy proposals, it’s hardly a particularly effective form of accountability when no one sees it. The democratic feedback loop breaks down when the bit between making decisions and people knowing about them collapses.

However, for our purposes, let’s park the question of market share and propose perhaps the more fundamental question, is it worth consuming? Well of course some exceptional contributors are engaging with nuance and impartiality. However the reality is that there is an increasing growth of players and platforms with agendas who make it difficult to govern effectively. One small but illustrative example in my area is the work to reform regulation of the short term rental market – hardly the biggest issue in the housing policy ecosystem but nonetheless a real factor driving affordability and availability challenges, particularly in some specific localities. We launched a discussion paper with an all options on the table approach to considering policy solutions. Surely this is the type of open-minded and consultative approach we want from government on complicated issues that require balancing interests and priorities. Right? Wrong.

Because of the fear around media reaction and scare campaigning on some potential options, there was anxiety almost to the point of paralysis with launching a discussion paper. Not because the premise was wrong, not because the content or solution was wrong – it was literally just an opportunity for input on options – but because people feared the way it would be received by the media. When policy dialogue is stalled or derailed because of the way our media receives and treats complex issues we are in an environment hostile to genuine reform.

Sensationalist scare campaigns are nothing new I suppose – reds under the bed, yellow peril – but I feel as though historically there was a capacity for debate, for back and forth, for call and response. This cadence of debate has been lost as we are constantly shouting at each other. As I said, of course there are exceptions who really try and provide platforms for robust and impartial and nuanced dialogue – and perhaps in the sweeping way I am describing the media environment I’m guilty of the same reductive generalisations. But, one year into government, I cannot avoid the conclusion that the progress possible on housing is not well supported by the headline grabbing and agenda driven approach of some loud media voices.

One of the consequences of the political environment I have described is that people are either deeply polarised or completed disengaged. This has made one of the most powerful ways to confront challenging complex problems – by unexpected partnerships and alliances – even more difficult. The ability to reach across the aisle, to share purpose with an erstwhile political “enemy”, can create powerful unions that bring new perspectives to complex issues. But in our polarised political environment, this is increasingly met by shrieks and disdain by your base who are appalled by any sign of ideological weakness. She’s agreeing with WHO now?! What a sell out.

I can understand if the idea of me reaching across the aisle might be met with some raised eyebrows. I’ll admit I am known as strident, determined and intense…but I genuinely believe those who have engaged with me recognise I very much value the importance of having robust discussions whilst being compassionate and considerate of others’ opinions. Proof point? My attendance here this evening.

I want to see more progressive members of Labor governments like myself at forums like this and on Sky After Dark, but I also want to see leaders of conservative political parties actually engaged on TikTok and sitting down with not sneering at The Guardian.

Now I am not for a culture of dialogue and listening that freezes progress. Consultation cannot mean moving forward only when we reach consensus – we can’t and shouldn’t have arrangements where you don’t do something because someone somewhere is opposed to it. Government is about governing – it isn’t a nineteenth century salon or debating society. It is about being prepared to compromise or adjust – flexibility in moving forward not roadblocks and complete diversions. And we need a media environment that fosters this engagement and flexibility, not derides all willingness to bend and find a middle ground as backdowns or backflips. Being able to do a backflip is an awesome skill. In political land, it’s a sign of failure.

Saul Alinsky has a quote I like: “The human spirit glows from that inner light of doubt whether we are right – while those who believe with certainty that they process the right answer are dark inside and darken the world around them.” The media could and should amplify those inner lights, allow politicians to doubt and struggle to address complex issues, not force us to darken the world by pretending we are right all the time.

I’ve had some choice words to say about the media’s role in making difficult and lasting change more challenging, but of course it’s entirely unhelpful and inaccurate to pretend that is the beginning and the end of the story. Politicians themselves are a big part of the problem. They can be timid, easily distracted, and trapped in endless four-year loops that prioritise electoral timetables over long term reform. They are either Icarus like – energetic visionaries whose impatience brings them crashing back down to earth – or Nero like – endlessly fiddling and equivocating whilst the world crashes and burns around them.

Of course, like the media I don’t mean all politicians and I’m optimistic that the new generation of leaders in NSW, from across the political spectrum, represent a real break from the caricatures described above. Case in point – Chris Minns and Dom Perrottet. These two leaders showed it is possible to disagree in elections without being jerks about it. And it wasn’t just the willingness to avoid personal potshots – which was commendable – it was the genuine effort to contest elections on policy grounds.

What do we think of the future role of privatisation? How do we manage the wages and conditions of public sector workers? Is the health and hospital system functioning well or not? We can genuinely disagree on these matters and contest the right to make decisions about them, and we can do that in a way that doesn’t end up promoting a political culture that undermines the capacity of any and all political leaders to make decisions and confront difficult challenges. When we argue our opponents are evil or terrible or shred their personal credibility just because we want to win, it’s a race to the bottom and we’re arguing over who loses last, because ultimately we do all lose.

These NSW leaders have not just tried to create good cultures, they have also heavily invested in the forums that genuinely promote bipartisanship – not just as a word thrown around to try and look centrist, but formal structures that are based on this principle. An obvious example is National Cabinet and Ministerial Councils. Now, I don’t praise Scott Morrison for much but this was a genuinely good concept and both Minns and Perrottet have grasped the opportunity presented. Not that every effort to make complicated issues bipartisan has been successful, but the good instincts to try and make this work before flicking the switch to attack mode is promising.

Chris has demonstrated these good instincts on housing, particularly. On each and every occasion there has been a chance to bring people in on the journey of reform, he has taken it. I’ve personally briefed Mark Speakman with Planning Minister Paul Scully on work to reform the planning system, directly asking for their engagement and support. Chris himself has reached out to local government leaders across Sydney to try and find common ground, calling mayor after mayor to extend offers for dialogue and flexibility if our shared goals of increasingly supply are supported.

From Saul Alinsky to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has a quote to illustrate my point, “Fight like hell for what you believe in, but do it in a way that brings people with you.” This is not about not believing in things, but if politicians want to make lasting change on complex issues they have to be willing to invest time and energy and effort into bringing people on the journey. Confidence in the outcome is only half the point here, plenty of people have good ideas but never give them the chance to flourish by forgetting the art of persuasion in politics.

If I have done nothing else with my speech tonight, I hope I have demonstrated my commitment to the art and skill of persuasion, my willingness to show up to audiences and platforms not necessarily predisposed to my point of view in the hope – not the vain hope, but the real hope – that such effort will be rewarded not so much by agreement, but by recognition that it is this work we all must engage in if we are determined to see the wicked problems of our age seriously confronted in a lasting way.