What should happen to the states?
According to a Newspoll, conducted for Griffith University last year, 81 per cent of respondents thought that democracy works well in Australia but only 68 per cent thought that the federal system works well. An overwhelming majority, 79 per cent, supported the proposition: “when there is an important issue that states are not solving, the federal government should step in to solve it”.
The problem which so annoys people, I suspect, is that on a whole range of vital subjects, the Commonwealth supplies at least some of the funding but the states are wholly in charge of the spending.
When things go wrong in hospitals, schools and infrastructure, the premiers blame the prime minister for not giving them enough money and the prime minister blames the premiers for not spending it wisely. The “blame game” must stop, as Mr Rudd said before the election, but how can it be stopped if the institutional arrangements don’t change?
Here are some possible means of addressing the problem.
One, would be to conclude more detailed agreements between the Commonwealth and the states with specific performance targets and penalties for non-compliance. In fact, this is what often happens now but the targets are often fudged and enforcing the penalties would usually make a bad situation worse. Under the healthcare agreements, for instance, the states are supposed to meet agreed waiting times for treatment or lose funding but statistics are often doctored and the fines are never imposed for obvious reasons.
Another would be to give the states revenue raising powers commensurate with their spending responsibilities. This is what the Fraser government tried to do in the 1970s but the states refused to accept them.
A third, and this is the proposal I put in my new book, Battlelines,
is to give the national government general authority over the states. If successful, a referendum to give the Commonwealth a general power to make laws wouldn’t abolish the states or even mean regular interference in their affairs. It would mean, though, that the Commonwealth would have the same authority over them that it has always had over the territories. This is what enabled the intervention to take place in the Northern Territory but not in the states despite similar problems in remote parts of Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia.
What do you think? Is the dysfunctional federation something we just have to live with or can it be improved? And if it can be improved, what is the best way forward?
The Hon. Tony Abbott MHR is the Federal Member for Warringah and Shadow Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
Printer-friendly version
Comments
dysfunction of current political system
Most people would agree that the system as it is is dysfunctional. Naturally, we don't have to live with the dysfunctional system, after all we created it so we can be change it again. But, many people are disillusioned and unwilling to engage in political reform as they don't believe that it will result in improvements but rather, they believe they get more of the same. A shift in power and influence such as the one proposed is by default controversial and will need to come from outside government to overcome the protection of self-interest, hence, people need to be engaged. Experiencing problems with the provision of services, e.g. in the health system might get even the most disillusioned people involved again in the political process. Which brings me to my last point and the second question: I don't think that giving the national government general authority over the states is sufficient to achieve the results needed - we are overgoverned and that in itself is a stumbling block for progress. Any reform has to minimise the bureaucracy as well as address structural issues to deliver real improvements. That can only be achieved through an open process with the involvement of the wider public.
Reply from Beyond Federation
Reply to Tony Abbott by John August, Committee Member, Beyond Federation
Tony Abbott's article notes how we generally feel democracy works well, but fewer think the Federal system works well.
Sure, a lot of the frustration is with the "Blame Game" - our state Governments can't deliver what we want and say the Feds have not given us enough money, and the Feds say they've allocated money, with the suggestion that states are running things poorly and that it's ultimately for them to set their own priorities.
Existing institutions encourage the "blame game". Still, there's my mother's truism : "you never have enough money to do everything you want to". Perhaps we could pay more tax for those expenditures. For many things, though, the Government would still have to say "no". But there's a definite improvement - at least someone is forced to stand in one place and say "no" rather than pass the buck.
Still, waste between different States and also between the States and Commonwealth Government - and also the impact on business - has its own cost. By reducing waste between Government, we'd in fact have more resources to spread around at the coalface - resulting in more Government services - all the more crucial in the current economic recovery.
This prompts our preferred solution - get rid of State Government entirely.
Some problems which are beyond politics, and beyond money - if there are important issues the "states are not solving", it makes sense for the Commonwealth Government to step in. Still, the Northern Territory intervention is controversial, with some saying it is about deny land to aborigines, others that it was sorta convenient in the last days of the Howard Government given how much it had previously ignored. Even granting this intervention for for the sake of argument, what about the earlier intervention into the NT's voluntary euthanasia laws ?
For sure, there would be such problems requiring Commonwealth Government intervention, but the problem would be identifying them. Would our new more powerful Commonwealth Government have a free hand to do whatever it likes ? That's not what we advocate. We do in fact advocate a proportionate increase on checks on Commonwealth Government power in proportion - but at least we'd have real checks, not just blame - shifting.
Definitely abolish the States!
Dr Mark Drummond did a Phd in how Australia could save $50 billion a year by abolishing State governments!
http://members.webone.com.au/%7Emarkld/PubPol/GSR/gsr.html
Only by creating a truly National and Local government model can we act fast enough to prepare for the climate and peak oil challenges ahead.
Power creep is already happening as the Federal government slowly takes over the collection of taxes and powers of the States. (Just compare the Federal percentage of taxation with 80 years ago!)
It’s time to discuss other methods of installing "checks and balances" lest our Federal government become the all-powerful monster that pro-Federation philosophers feared in the first place! The States are gradually be taken over by default.
They don't properly serve as a "check and balance", yet cripple our country. COAG has failed to deliver on the Murray Darling, and duplication is crippling our economy.
Everyone blames everyone else for health, and not having a National education policy for a nation of only 21 million is a joke. Indeed, policies for police, welfare, education and child protection could all become more equitable and more efficient across the whole country. Why do families that move interstate have to watch children suffer adjusting to a new curriculum? Why do we have 8 State websites on diabetes?
And the local governments are not even described in the Constitution! They are the kicking boys of BOTH the State and Federal governments. Australia is atypical in geography. Far from being "more local", some of our States are so large you could fit a few European COUNTRIES in them!
Instead, we should admit we have a large geographic area anyway, and save money and confusion by having clear National government policies and LOCAL service delivery. Let's have local governments making local decisions about Zoning, Parks, etc. Local school boards should plan the school buildings, the hiring and firing of teachers, etc. Imagine local elections MEANING something again!
It’s time Australia had the public debate about how to streamline the National government and make our National Politicians truly accountable, while also guaranteeing certain local government powers in the Constitution. See
http://www.beyondfederation.org.au/ for more ideas and alternative models.
Dr Drummond’s "Australia United" plan is “all carrot and no stick” for State government employees as they are rolled over into a National government, and any that are "pruned" are given generous super payouts to compensate for this once-off overhaul. After 5 years we could finally have a democracy where the responsibilities of 2 tiers of government were obvious, there was no more buck-passing, and we had more money for local governments than they ever dreamed of.
http://members.webone.com.au/%7Emarkld/PubPol/GSR/AusUplan250609.pdf
Dysfunctional federation
"Is it something that we have to live with?" Tony asked. Well of course not and that was also the very clear answer he gave as after-dinner speaker at the Rescue or Reform conference held in Tenterfield in October 2008 to commemorate the start of federation movement launched by Henry Parkes in 1889. Amazingly, former ALP Premier of SA, John Bannon in reply, defended federation and as the current ALP Premiers have demonstrated, have made a 180% turn on the issue of abolishing the states.
My own paper at the conference completely rejected the meliorism and piecemeal tinkering of the Rudd Government, dressed up as a new dimension of "cooperative federalism" which has never worked and now actually works to further undermine what is left of the autonomy of the states.
It would be equally amazing, but certainly in the national interest, if the Liberal Party were to move away from federation and start thinking about alternatives such as proposed by Beyond Federation:
a two level structure with regional administrations and agencies as adjuncts to a much stronger local government tier.
We need a far superior system of governance and the leadership with the political will to launch the public debate on achieving that. While I doubt that Tony will carry his party with him on this issue it is heartening that this new voice has no fear to state the case for the abolition of the states. Of course there is a lot more than federal-state relations to overhaul, including the entire constitution, but it is undoubtedly a very major aspect of governance renewal.
The Australian people are sovereign. They should be able to change their system of governance when they come to the conclusion that it is greatly to the benefit of the nation. The waste of federation is staggering. The sophistry of some academics to argue the opposite is most disturbing while they should be in the forefront of major reform.
Klaas Woldring, Ph. D.
Associate Professor (ret)
Abolshing the states a step too far
So far, all respondents seem to think that abolishing the states makes more sense than merely giving the national parliament a general power to override them if needs be.
I can understand this view. John Howard once said that if we were starting from scratch we wouldn't have three levels of government. Instead, he said, we'd have a national government and regional governments with powers approximating those of Brisbane City Council.
I'm sure the former prime minister is right but, as he well knew, we can't start from scratch. Even my proposal requires a referendum and, as everyone knows, referenda don't have a great success rate. That's why it's best to make the least possible change needed to bring about the desired result which is a federation which get things done. Abolishing the states altogether would be a giant step too far.
Ensuring that the national government has more-or-less the same power over the states that it's long had over the territories, by contrast, is an incremental change. Smaller changes have a better chance of success than bigger ones. Are we in the business of constructing the best possible model or in the business of progress in the right direction? I'll take achievable change over an unachieveable ideal every time - Tony Abbott