On Saturday evening, Tony Abbott delivered the Sir Henry Parkes Oration in Tenterfield, kicking off what will be a growing debate about the nature and mechanism of Australian federalism between now and the next election.
The Prime Minister’s speech reflected the thoughtful and honest views of a politician who, as health minister in the Howard government, experienced first-hand the complexities of federalism in one of the most important areas of public policy. Indeed, his speech was partly about his own personal intellectual journey from a “philosophical federalist into a pragmatic nationalist”, and beyond; since becoming leader of his party, Abbott has abandoned the proposal he put forward in his 2009 book Battlelines for a constitutional amendment giving the Commonwealth an automatic capacity to override state legislation.
Instead, Abbott now offers a more realistic program: a green paper and white paper process to kick off the debate, with the goal of achieving some form of both Commonwealth-state and bipartisan consensus on reform before the next federal election.
Needless to say, the issue of money looms large in such a debate, and by refusing to “play the rule-in, rule-out game”, Abbott necessarily has set GST hares running yet again — and not just about the rate of the GST, but about its distribution.
As we saw during the election campaign last year, when Labor effectively exploited Abbott’s willingness to consider GST reform, this is politically risky. But it is a risk well worth taking. Australian treasuries, state and federal, face revenue challenges for the foreseeable future. As the Prime Minister says, our federation is “not entirely or even substantially dysfunctional”, but establishing a more effective and efficient system of revenue-gathering, revenue-sharing and expenditure is necessary to enable governments to meet the coming fiscal challenge of an ageing population and long-term structural deficits.
Many have tried to initiate debates about federalism previously, and failed. Perhaps this push will as well, but the Prime Minister has given it an excellent start that should be acknowledged by other governments, politicians and parties.
23 thoughts on “Crikey says: we need a debate about federalism”
max
October 27, 2014 at 1:17 pmDo we really need a higher rate on a regressive tax?
klewso
October 27, 2014 at 2:56 pmOf course it’s a risk well worth taking ….. you go for your quoit with it Toady, we’ll catch up with you at the election.
Electric Lardyland
October 27, 2014 at 3:09 pm“Thoughtful and honest”? Well, there’s two terms that I’d be never tempted to use in regards to Captain Australia.
cairns50
October 27, 2014 at 3:11 pmwas this eiditorial written by someone from tony abbott’s office ie peta credlin
this ranks up there with some of the worst editoral comment ive seen published by crikey
why dont you publish a transcript of jay weatherall’s interview with fran kelly on RN this morning for an enlightened view on this subject
Norman Hanscombe
October 27, 2014 at 3:48 pmResponses to this Crikey article show that there’s an even greater need for people to be better informed about what’s needed before the debate can prove useful.
paddy
October 27, 2014 at 4:29 pmWhen did Peta Credlin start writing the Crikey editorials?
LOL “thoughtful and honest views”, from the Lance Armstrong of Prime Ministers eh?
CML
October 27, 2014 at 4:36 pmLike Electric Lardyland, I nearly choked on my lunch reading this editorial! “Thoughtful and honest”? Surely you jest, Crikey???
Also agree with cairns50 – the interview on RN Breakfast with Jay Weatherill said it all.
And Norman H – get over your intellectual superiority. We can’t all be as clever as you are!
But I do know a thing or two about the healthcare system in this country, having spent close on 50 years working in it. What Toady wants to do is a load of nonsense. As Jay said – when the Feds start paying their fair share of public hospital costs, (for example), then maybe we can have a discussion on the wider ‘problems’ with Federalism.
Everybody loves to demonise Kevin Rudd, but at least he set out to repair this problem. The Feds always paid around 50% of public hospital costs back in the 1970/80’s period. It is now not much over 40% and falling. Very easy for the Feds to say how badly the states manage healthcare when the LNP consistently backs ‘private’ everything, and starves the public sector of funds. Same with education.
If you believe the Feds are genuine about ‘fixing federation’, you need your head examined! They are about reducing taxes (especially for business and their rich mates), user pays, and doing stuff all for the rest of us!!!
Electric Lardyland
October 27, 2014 at 4:57 pmYes, CML, to genuinely reform Federal/State relationships to the benefit of all, it would take a great deal of patience, intellectual creativity and above all, negotiating skills. Which puts it totally beyond the scope of this government.
Christopher Pyne? Barnaby Joyce? George Brandis? Joe Hockey? Tony Abbott? Oh, pleeaaase!
The Pav
October 27, 2014 at 7:03 pmRe The Sir Henry Parkes Oration
Firstly I have long thought that as the Constitution needs constant revision as times change. The process becomes absurdly politicised so that reform becomes too hard. To overcome this perhaps we could have a standing constitutional convention based at tenterfield that meets every two years to allow our society to propose amendments. Hopefully this would be a more democratic and less politicall partisan commencement to the process.
As to Abbotts speech I must admit to raising my eyebrows at the phrase ” honest & thoughtful”. Initially I was prepared to let it through to the ‘keeper then you raised his time as Health Minister. This was the man who in that capacity made a rock solid copper bottom promise regarding Medicare and then as soon as the election was won broke it. As they were the incumbents he knew the financial position so there is no wriggle room there. Their majority was increased and they won the senate so there is no wriggle room theere. It was a classic lie from Abbott. A behaviour pattern he endlessly repeats yet is never held to account. There is absolutely no doubt he is inherently the most dishonest politician the federal parliament has ever seen.
You state that he has changed his view from that stated in Battlelines due to to his experience as Health Minister. WTF!!! He was health minsiter BEFORE Battlelines was written.
Please stop considering anything this mendacious pimple on the rump of Australian poliics should say be worth any consideration at all. You are trying to treat Abbott as if he was just a normal honest person. He is not normal and not honest and so so toyally driven by his extreemism that he has abandoned any pretence at integrity
Norman Hanscombe
October 27, 2014 at 7:41 pmThe Pav, at the time of the Henry Parkes Tenterfield Speech there weren’t the restraints the eventually adopted Constitution contained which are what makes change so difficult. Your suggested revision [even IF it were desirable] could be adopted only via the present Constitution’s Rules, and that’s something which is so unlikely to happen that competent bookmakers would fight to take your money.
I’d suggest, by the way, that your understanding of more recent political events shows a certainty which might not be shared by many Historians; and I suspect Abbott’s supporters might be pleased to see your personal attacks spread widely among thinking swinging voters, because they’d know it’s not what works.