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 28, 2014 at 2:34 pmDear Norman @ 12
1) Just because it is hard is not a reason to try. If it is right then do so. You argue that we shouldn’t even try because it is hard. That is not logical. If you argued that my suggistion was faulty for a logical reason or there was a better way then we could have a meaningful argument
2) Statement of fact is never abuse. That you do not accept the fact I stated regarding Abbott’s dishonesty ( I mean it isn’t that hard to check) really exposes you as some kind of appologist for Abbott and wilfully “blind” Probably for pecunary benefit.
3) Accusation of hubris is pure straw man argument. Statements of fact is never hubris. It is that thing so alien to Abbott . Honesty ( Now that is an attack) Actually I am pretty sure Abbott has a very good idea what honesty is…Mainly so he can avoid it ( petty trite and banal insult that one)
Norman Hanscombe
October 28, 2014 at 11:57 pmThe Pav, that it is hard [and painful] work to analyse material has zilch to do with whether or not one thinks an opinion is correct. As for us discussing the logical status of your arguments on a blog site, a prerequisite would be that both of us were sufficiently able to do so.
That this isn’t possible is clear from how you believe a basis for asserting “Abbott’s dishonesty” is that “I mean it isn’t that hard to check”, and then go on about this “really exposes (me) as some kind of appologist (sic)for Abbott” who is “wilfully ‘blind’ Probably for pecunary (sic) benefit.”
You’ve now demonstrated beyond any doubt to those readers au fait with disciplines such as scientific method and basic logic that it’s a waste of time discussing your quaint notions further until you acquire the necessary skills.
The Pav
October 29, 2014 at 4:02 pmDear Norman
I wanted to make the point that you seemed to take the position that because it was hard to do and the outcome unlikely that it wasn’t even worth trying. Cousnel of defeat shall we say whilst I was being somewhat more hopeful
As to Abbott
No change to Medicare when in govt.LIE
No new taxes LIE
No cuts to ABC/SBS LIE
and so on
When it a pattern of repeated behaiviour for overt a decade not the basis to accept as fact that Abbott is inherently dishonest
That you refuse to accept such and obvious and inescable fact merely indicates a curious form of shall we say myopia the reasons for which I merely speculated at.
BTW I notice that your typing is nearly as bad as mine