Abbott’s populist federalism pitch no silver bullet
|
Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott have made much of the need to “fix federalism”. But while Rudd has put most of his efforts into improving COAG and “co-operative federalism”, Abbott wants more radical change that would put more power in the hands of the Commonwealth. Compared to most federations, Australia already puts a lot of legislative and financial power in the hands of the central government. A string of High Court decisions have given the Commonwealth power over areas that were once managed by the states. And its control of the purse strings enables it to influence state policy by issuing conditional grants. Abbott would go further. He says the current arrangements create blurred lines of responsibility and allow states to shift the blame for poor performance, especially in areas such as health, education and the environment. He wants reform that puts one level of government — the Commonwealth — in charge. In his book, Battlelines, Abbott argues for a constitutional amendment that would allow the Commonwealth to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Australia. This would mean that the Commonwealth could make laws on any topic. It would also give it a free hand to override state laws in the event of conflict. This would, in effect, reduce the states to the status of territories. They would remain self-governing, but the Commonwealth could intervene at will. Over time, their role might be reduced to that of mere service deliverers, following whatever policy direction is set in Canberra. For Abbott, an exemplar of this approach to federalism is the Northern Territory intervention. He sees it as an ideal example of what can be achieved with a strong central government and, under his approach, the Commonwealth could do the same in the states. The implications of such an approach are also apparent from looking at the crisis in the Murray-Darling Basin. The federal government could implement a national basin plan, reduce water allocations and remove trading barriers. And it could do so without consultation, and without fear of its decisions being challenged in the courts. If we take him at his word, the federation under Abbott would look very different indeed. For one thing, the 20-year experiment with co-operative federalism would be dead. The Commonwealth would set policy direction and the states would be forced to march into line. Federal governments would also have a far greater capacity to introduce sweeping reforms. Far-reaching policies such as WorkChoices could be implemented across the country without fear of challenge. And there would be far less scope for policy experimentation or diversity among the states. Any state laws with a whiff of controversy — think euthanasia or gay marriage — could be overturned with impunity. In the end, Abbott’s plan for Australia’s federal system amounts to a populist pitch, which, in practice, has little chance of being achieved. It taps into popular disaffection with state governments but carries no guarantee of improving policy delivery. Whether in the Murray-Darling Basin or elsewhere, hard decisions remain no matter who is in charge. Abbott’s plans are bold and bracing, but they are no silver bullet. Paul Kildea is federalism project director at the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law, University of New South Wales |
|
|
|
Crikey's Guide to Julia Gillard
16 Comments
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas
I think you are spot on.
Attention seeking by creating a popular smell.
Populist, nodding with complainers, but no bright ideas that can achieve a researched desirable expectation much less outcome.
Too much budgie stroking.
So much for the Liberals being the party for smaller government! First Barnaby Joyce as shadow finance minister, now this. I think Abbott’s lost the plot.
Abbot’s plan may be no silver bullet, and no doubt very self-serving politically, but something needs to change in Australia. With a pitiful 21 million people we have way too much government and no where near enough talent to stretch over it all. Who takes state politicians seriously? On almost every major issue you can think of, we need action and reform. Urban planning and public transport infrastructure. Energy. Health. Murray-Darling and most things to do with water.
Look at the UK with about 60 million people — notwithstanding the recent devolution to Scotland & Wales, there is one strong central government that at least holds the reins (what they do with them is another matter).
Of course with risk-averse Rudd in power for the forseeable future nothing dramatic — indeed nothing much at all — will happen. But given the lamentable country-wide State politics, people may not be averse to abolition of States, strengthening of the Feds and more administration of local things by local authorities……err, yeah, well it is Friday afternoon….
There is one minor obstacle to Abbot’s plan, evenif it has merit - it would require major changes to the constitution, which can only be done by referendum. End of story.
The states are too large to have so little revenue raising power apart from iniquitous penal taxes such as stamp duty, traffic fines and gambling tax. Bring on the break up, Hail Capricornia, Riverina, Centralia and Kimberley.
The Constitution already gives the Federal Government power to enact laws for “peace, order, and good government” but only in defined areas. Hence all Australian Governments since Federation have been unconstitutional. Any serious student of history would acknowledge the past century has been a saga of uncalled-for war, administrative chaos, and bad government.
I’m basically in tune with the sentiments of Michael James and AR. Interesting use of the UK as an example (though the same could be said of France, Germany and others) - dealing with the anachronism of the States should be be included as part of the constitutional overhaul that will be necessary to move to a genuinely independent Australia. But in some matters, such as the Murray-Darling disaster, there is ample room for the Federal government to take charge now, if it wants to. Even on a Friday…
Abbot is not to me a very attractive character, thanks to his antediluvian views on matters such as the British monarchy and birth control: and his shadow cabinet might be better described as a crypt. What I do like about him, however, is that he is at least poking our smarmy Chief Apparatchik where he should be poked - which is the gaping chasm between sententious pronouncement and genuine, practical action that will benefit the nation as a whole (and not just those blessed Working Families with backyard windmills, rainwater tanks, censored internet connections, subsidised jobs in foreign-owned car factories and children at state-supported religious and ‘private’ schools).
Rudd so far has done nothing useful. His defining characteristic is emulation of the ‘talk big, do nothing, buy off selected mates groups’ style of Beattie and Carr; their legacies of drift and decay, reason enough to ditch State governments! He has none of the gumption of his Labor predecessors in Federal office, all of whom had occasion to take on and bring to heel recidivist elements in their own ranks, and the commitment to drive positive change.
So keep poking Tony - maybe you’ll provoke the Reverend Obadiah Rudd to an epiphany!
There’s actually the nub of an appealing idea in this for me. The MD-Basin is a complete disaster, mostly due to state recalcitrance. National things should be controlled Federally; not piecemeal by the States. As a man made example, the electricity network is governed beyond state borders; imagine the nightmares that could arise if it wasn’t?
But, I agree that the pitch itself is populist, empty rhetoric. Sure, it’s good to talk about, like going to Jupiter, but with no way of doing it you’re just pissing in the wind.
..nothing from MPM?
Tom,
Please refrain from Troll-feeding.
I noticed that - it’s probably shedding skin or metastatic or worse. Don’t waken the shrunken, evil thing.
She is busy mowing JWH lawn.
Big government always looks attractive. People talk of economies of scale and reduced waste. The problem is that flexibility is lost. Guys in Canberra become the experts, lacking alot of the historical and geographical nuances that are required for quality policy making. And in complex areas like health, eductaion and the environment you need flexibility.
Look at Health. NSW health is in the toilet, losing money, so much so that they have problems paying their bills. Victorian Health on the other hand is a model of efficiency, delivering world class health services on time and on budget. (NSW is now studying Victoria’s model)
Victoria’s model wouldn’t be possible under a Federal system (as it would no doubt be Canberra’s way or the highway).
Do we really want something like Defence (the very definition of ordinary management and waste) becoming the template for policy on health, education and water?
Scott,
NSW health is a state responsibility at the moment NSW with all its “historical and geographical” not to mention political nuances, is a basket case .
The mess it is in has zip to do with Canberras’ experts .
The States’ petty politics and corruption has a lot do do with the mess they are in, the way I see it federally we are OK, so there is good reason to consider getting rid of state power brokers and reducing the amount of government we have, whatever the template!
There is no doubt that the Health system in NSW is disfunctional. But that is the direct result of 14 years of a dodgy labor government. My argument is that Victoria (or any other state) who have a competent state government shouldn’t be penalised for NSW’s incompetence. And that would be the result of a Federal takeover of health.
I agree with Michael James.
1. There’s a total disconnect between the feds bringing in migrants and leaving it to the states to settle them. The states obviously can’t co-ordinate to get the optimum nation-wide spread, nor do they have the fund to provide the infrastructure. This is not to excuse the states’ incompetence or NSW’s state of utter dysfunction, but it does show that the present system just isn’t working.
2. There’s the massive waste of money in duplicating the HEW functions - Health, Education and Welfare - like 9 separate health departments!
3. It’s so obvious that the states are the useless buffer between local and national government, as evidenced particularly in NSW with the state government taking over council planning laws.
4. There are so many other functions that the state do badly that could be done better nationally, like the M-Darling, Consumer Protection, highways, forestry.
Abolish the states - first sensible thing I can remember Abbott saying.