Keep the states but make federalism function better

State against state: Campbell Newman's federalism

· THE AUSTRALIAN

· APRIL 12, 2012 12: 00AM

· Print

· Save for later

Michael McKenna

Reporter

Brisbane

https://plus.google.com/101763658513163554640/

CAMPBELL Newman has rejected the concept of " co-operative federalism", saying intergovernmental relations should start with every state's right to seek a competitive advantage over each other, using lower taxes and less regulation to attract business and secure investment.

On the eve of his first Council of Australian Governments meeting tomorrow, the new Queensland Premier said he was " already underwhelmed" by the Gillard government's dealings with the states and accused federal Labor of driving a media-focused agenda lacking in consultation and dependent on the premiers being held ransom to promises of commonwealth funding. Mr Newman, who this week flagged his government was seeking legal advice for a possible joint High Court challenge to the carbon tax with other conservative-held states, also warned that while he backed Julia Gillard's proposed national disability insurance scheme, funding was the sole responsibility of the commonwealth.

Left-right slogans drown out debate on federalism

· CASSANDRA WILKINSON

· THE AUSTRALIAN

· MAY 10, 2014 12: 00AM

· Print

· Save for later

The National Commission of Audit has certainly proved you can’t please all of the people all of the time. Reaction has been more polarised than it might have been if more people had read the report itself rather than early angry comments on the report — but, given the size of it, perhaps that’s understandable.

It’s in the nature of any report this comprehensive to be misunderstood by detractors and supporters, but this is too important a review for public debate to be allowed to descend into lazy politicking. Whether or not one agrees there is a crisis, there is a long- term structural gap opening up between the amount of money government collects and the amount of money it spends. Equally significantly, the audit is a chance to talk about who deserves help and how we can pay for it.

Keep the states but make federalism function better

· THE AUSTRALIAN

· JANUARY 05, 2013 12: 00AM

· Print

· Save for later

IN the interests of delivering leaner, more effective government, there is a certain logic to Bob Hawke's suggestion for the abolition of the states. The removal of an entire administrative layer would strip out much of the duplication and overregulation that costs taxpayers and business billions of dollars a year. That would be the upside.

The downside would be inefficient centralism and a reduction in accountability that would weaken the robust democracy that has served us well since the 19th century.

Mr Hawke is partially right when he says state boundaries reflect " the meanderings of the British explorers over the face of the continent over 200 years ago". But they also reflect the tyranny of distance and the hub and spoke relationship between the interior and coastal cities that helped generate the prosperity we enjoy today.

The greatest concern, however, is that removing state bureaucracy would inevitably remove a layer of democracy. Our nation would be without 607 elected representatives whom the Australian people have the power to vote in or out at regular intervals - servants of the popular will whom constituents can telephone, email, send messages, contact on social media sites, button-hole in the street or hold accountable in letters-to-the-editor or talkback radio.

In their absence, if citizens of outer-western Sydney, miners in Western Australia's Pilbara, Tasmanian farmers or tourist operators in far north Queensland wanted to petition authorities on matters of local or state interest, they would need to take their concerns to Canberra, a city that is geographically and temperamentally separated from the rest of the country. Recalling the federal bureaucracy's performance in the Building the Education Revolution and the pink batts scheme, centralism begins to look like an increasingly bad idea.

Nor would the uniformity of taxation and other policies that would come about if the states were abolished necessarily be a positive development. From the abolition of death duties in Queensland and Victoria's privatising electricity to cuts in payroll tax, competition between states to attract investment and boost prosperity for their citizens has prompted important public policy innovations.

It's hypothetical: as Foreign Minister and former NSW premier Bob Carr points out, any referendum to abolish the states would " perish at the hands of voters because, distrustful of politicians, they prefer to see power divided instead of concentrated". Australians are wary of constitutional change, carrying eight of 44 referendum proposals since Federation.

The real challenge is root-and-branch reform of federal-state relations, the elimination of duplication and possibly of some government departments at state or federal level and cross-party agreement on reforms. The egalitarian principle of fiscal equalisation, for example, has served the federation well in assisting weaker states. There is a strong case, however, to reform the current model by replacing average standards of services with minimum standards, providing impetus for states to put their own economic houses in order by paring back over-bloated bureaucracies.

Council of Australian Governments discussions on the Gonski school reforms and National Disability Insurance Scheme will be a stern test of the process and need a commitment to public policy excellence that extends beyond wrangling over monetary distribution. In education, state and federal ministers must focus on classroom and teacher education reforms that need a co-operative approach between state departments, universities and the commonwealth. Realistic, pragmatic federalism is essential to the nation's future.