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”
The Pav
October 27, 2014 at 8:09 pmNorman @ 10
Wasn’t thinking of it as a Constitutional reform in itself but more ( shudder) like a think tank so ideas can be floated, discussed refined and maybe a consenus reached beforehand. Hopefully in an atmosphere of restraint and respect ( as opposed to parliament or the hustings)
I don’t attack Abbott I merely point out the truth. If people don’t like it then all I can do is shrug my shoulders and suggest ..”there is none so blind as they who will not see..etc”
Norman Hanscombe
October 27, 2014 at 8:31 pmThe Pav @11. Hopes of “reaching a consensus beforehand” are even more remote than passing Referenda.
Whatever you may want to believe [and regardless of whether or not your assertions were correct]it WAS an attack on Abbott.
It also helps to remember that the adage you mention, “there is none so blind as they who will not see”, is rarely applied to ourselves, which can be where (if applied) might be most helpful re detecting flaws in our own arguments.
Hubris isn’t a good foundation for developing internally consistent arguments for the conclusions we desperately don’t wish to abandon.
2bobsworth
October 28, 2014 at 12:39 amWe need to talk about Crikey.
I notice this style of Schizophrenic Editorial popping up in the SMH on a regular basis. Bravely running against the grain of the letters to the editor, maybe to encourage “balance”?
Because of the old school “Lord of the Manor” privilege of not to having to sign a name to a god given Editorial presented as a proclamation, I just put it down to them giving Gina a go at the tiller occasionally.
Now it’s starting to show up in Crikey! Crikey, where will it end. Editorial Ebola no less.
Let’s start a new egalitarian trend and have a policy of a NAME on the Editorial to prove the conviction of the writer.
Norman Hanscombe
October 28, 2014 at 7:09 am2bobsworth, your perception of irony is a tad rusty, or you’d not be scolding others for anonymity from behind the screen of your nom de blog. Your conspiratorial naivety in convincing yourself of the need to end such diabolical ‘evil’ practices seems as good as any an explanation for why you end up missing the messages because you’re so busy shooting all messengers who don’t shout your shibboleths.
AR
October 28, 2014 at 7:33 amI just assumed that this tripe was another of BK’s increasingly desperate job applications to join NewsCorps, where facts go to die.
He seems to try the most outlandish idiocies to show that he can write anything without shame, a pen for hire – eg Leventy a statesman, Lady P potential Leader – FFS, he’ll have Peter Dunnuttin as Albert Schweitzer and David Wossaname as Bismark next.
As to MM’s akshal mouthings, refusing to “play the rule-in, rule-out game” it’s not a game; he’s several times ruled out in perpetuity (which, presumably to his butterfly concentration span, is 5-10mins) any increase in the GST.
The really weird thing was a more effective and efficient system of revenue-gathering from someone who claimed for 3 years that the carbon price & mining taxes throttled business and left the economy a ‘smoking ruin’ (Leventy’s favourite phrase).
SO if he wants to gather more tax, try some ‘back room’ effeciencies such as abolishing the innumerable tax concessions only available to megacorps & miners, decidely NOT yer tradie in a ute.
Favourite would be to remove advertising as a taqx write-off.
Ryan John
October 28, 2014 at 7:54 amCrikey! If this is your editorial line then I will seriously have to consider dropping my subscription, which would be sad. That was such a toadying, sycophantic article I nearly threw up. Where am I going to get my news if you guys are working for the man. Who is the editor? Can one of the other journalists refute this sentiment so I can go back to feeling ok? Last chance Crikey!
Ryan John
October 28, 2014 at 8:22 amI look forward to renewing Crikey’s mission as the place to go for stories that are ignored or buried by the majors.
— Marni Cordell
What happened Marni? Was this editorial line not pushed far enough by Newscorp for your liking?
Norman Hanscombe
October 28, 2014 at 8:35 amIt’s bad enough finding you’re casting pearls before swine without the latter biting back.
Ryan John
October 28, 2014 at 8:48 amPersonal slights before 9am? Brilliant commentary.
drsmithy
October 28, 2014 at 10:29 amPrevious post seems to have been eaten…
Anyone who thinks this Government will divest power to the States is off in la-la land.
Responsibility, sure. They can’t wait to pass the buck. Power ? Not a chance.
Australia could certainly benefit from some Constitutional reform. But nothing positive in that area will come from the morally bankrupt, intellectual wasteland that’s been masquerading as Government in Australia for the last decade or so. It would be the final sacrifice of our sovereignty and rights to corporate interests.