If there has ever been a worse contribution to Australian federalism than this decision by the Howard government to provide special funding to a hospital in Tasmania (naturally located in a marginal electorate) I don’t recall it. I say this as someone who has repeatedly called for the Commonwealth to take over hospitals.
Interfering in the funding for one hospital is worse than useless, and the transparent political opportunism of this decision makes it worse still. Why not have the Federal Health Minister review waiting lists, and push swinging voters up the queue?
This is part of a pattern with the Howard government, in which it funds or mandates politically appealing extras while leaving the states with the responsibility for providing the basics. We’ve seen this in schools (chaplains, values education, compulsory history and so on), TAFE (the Commonwealth’s new colleges) the Murray (where the states are still stuck with managing land use), Aboriginal communities and a whole host of other areas. The result is even more duplication and waste than we had before. Howard is now more centralist than Whitlam, who at least encouraged the states to join his efforts.
I’m beginning to think that maybe some of this should be done in reverse. Perhaps Queensland should turn its police force into an army, and start invading other countries, or top up old age pensions. And maybe local councils should get in the act as well. Then we’d always have a choice of three governments to deal with whatever problem we faced. Why accept duplication when we could have triplication instead?
John Quiggin 
you vote for politicians, and complain when you are ruled by politicians.
Why not privatise hospitals and do away with waiting queues. Nobody queues for food in Australia (like they did in the USSR) but we still queue for medical care.
Decentralising government and moving such decisions (as well as taxation and spending) closer to communities is a good second best option. Although advocating the invasion of other countries is clearly sarcasm and I’m ignoring that suggestion.
The prospect of triplication has moved closer due to the Howard government’s suggestion that money for public housing could be delivered by Agreements with the private sector direct with the Federal govt, with local government and the state government’s are already there.
What is disturbing about the current trend is that the constitution is being shifted seismically without anyone having a say except the federal government ministers.
The cynical actions of the Howard government which has systematically reduced funding to areas where the state has had responsibility but funded through the Commonwealth. The reduction has reduced services and then the Federal Government steps in to fix up the problems it has helped to create.
The unannounced war on the states is leading to poor outcomes and grandstanding. The money is going to marginal electorates to shore up support. The Labor Party may yet win the popular vote but still lose the election due to the undermining of fair funding systems through blatant pork barrelling.
The States are an anachronism from our Colonial past. The focus of consititutional reform should not be on becoming a Republic but on getting rid of the States. We should have a federal government and then larger Regional governments and local councils should be gotten rid of. I support Beattie’s efforts at the moment to amalgamate smaller local goverments.
For an economist you can’t add up very well.
“Why accept duplication when we could have triplication instead?”
We already have triplication and the only way we will have duplication is to abolish the states (which should be done ASAP).
The states are irrelevant. Federalism is crap (they have done without federalism in the UK quite successfully).
Australia would benefit to have its bloated sponging public sector purged of one tier.
Or we could abolish federation and do away with central government.
“Perhaps Queensland should turn its police force into an army” and NSW VIC WA etc…..
i suppose democracy is out of the question.
if we had democracy, the discussions on this site could lead to citizen initiative action, since we don’t they are just adolescent gossip.
Whilst at times its hard to justify the States existence it is also hard to see how they could be dismantled as they are of the Crown, are protected by the constitution and form the Commonwealth.
Terje, the food problem in the USSR isn’t solved. Most people are now hungry. You economists are a worry. The inefficiencies of cyberspace must drive you crazy. Professor Q should charge for people to comment on this blog, much more efficient and I wouldn’t have to be content with comment number 10. I could rise to comment number 1 if I had the money.
“you vote for politicians, and complain when you are ruled by politicians.”
I don’t think that is really fair. I have never had my primary vote elect anyone (at least we have a STV I guess). Also, I would think about 40-50% of people from the last federal election didn’t want a liberal member as their first choice. So a party that only has about 50% of the public support them have 100% of the power because of the way the two houses lined up and the nature of the major parties and their members.
well bugger me, i agree with razor.
Paul – I think John is charging the market rate. The USSR no longer exists but within the remains of the USSR the food queueing problem and the vast inefficiency of idle hands it created is resolved. Not all parts of the former USSR are doing as well as other parts but nobody serious is wishing for a return to socialised food production and distribution.
Tony G, please read the comments policy posted in the sidebar and avoid pointless snark in future.
The following quotation is from the platform adopted by the Federal Council of the Liberal Party in June 2003.
“The structure of government, with a bicameral parliament, independent
courts and a federation of states, provides the Australian people
with the means to protect their liberties. In defending that structure,
and in opposing laws infringing social, political or economic liberties,
Liberals are able to guard the freedoms of the Australian people.
A strong federal system requires commitment from the
governments of the States and the Commonwealth. Responsibilities
should be divided according to federal principles, without the
Commonwealth taking advantage of powers it has acquired
other than by referendum. All spheres of government should
possess and exercise taxing powers commensurate with their
responsibilities.”
It seems we now have the John Howard party rather than the Liberal Party.
rog is correct one cannot abolish states but one can increase the number.
Why not increase them a lot and abolish local councils!!
Howard’s new clothes
We have been fed the same line for years. Labor needs policies to win government. But to keep government Howard knows that you don’t need principles. Remember Federalism. Gough Whitlam should demand an apology from Howard and Abbott now. Johnny used to use the term centrist as a synonym for satan. Now centrist intervention is the new creed of the conservatives.
Can you imagine Tasmanians swallowing that during the 1983 election when Hawke promised to override the State government to stop the Franklin dam? Labor was trounced in Tassie. Guess who was a strong proponent of States rights at the time? Howard was clothed in principles in those days. His new attire is more interesting.
Yesterday Tony Abbott described the States as the seconds or thirds teams. Has Abbott only read the part of the Constitution that mentions the monarchy?
Whether Health should be a Federal responsibility is a matter for debate and constitutional change. Not pork barreling. The States have claimed that Hospitals have been under-funded by the Commonwealth to the tune of $1 billion a year. It is much cheaper and politically more astute to target the funds. At marginal electorates! Even the estimated $45 million a year for the Mersey would only cost $720 million if it were spent in all 16 marginal seats needed to retain government. Discount vote buying!
You have to keep a sense of history and of humour in these times.
Kevin Rennie
from ‘Labor View from Broome’
http:/laborview.blogspot.com/
Sorry for snarking.
I would vote for Rudd if he could figure out a way to get rid of one tier of government. Either by abolishing the states or combining them with local council.
People are sick of paying for the excesses of government at all levels and this ploy of Howards is a cynical example of the status quo.
Speaking as a Victorian, I place far greater trust in my State government and my set of bureaucrats to manage health, education, police and the environment than I would ever trust someone in Canberra. Maybe we could get rid of States if we boosted local government substantially, but it would have to be very substantial. All of the relevant expertise still resides with the States.
The federal take-over of the Murray Darling has never been adequately explained with regards to good policy. No one has said how the Commonwealth would manage it better than Victoria. OK so NSW and QLD have problems, but they could easily be transferred to the new Federal authority.
‘Why not have the Federal Health Minister review waiting lists, and push swinging voters up the queue?’
For god’s sake stop giving them ideas.
What are the odds that Howard will shortly find a way to interfere in Queensland local government amalgamations? An inquiry into its implications for revenue-sharing might be a good excuse. Bugger, now I’m doing it.
We could eliminate duplication and triplication quite simply by clarifying what is level of government is there to do and then allowing each level to fund itself independent of the others. Why have a Federal Department of Education, for example? The Federal Department of Health could also go. The actual cost of running a state parliament is quite low – almost certainly less than the inefficiencies that result from wrong decisions taken by people remote from the problem.
We don’t seem to hear much of the previous foray into State responsibities by the Howard Government – the Australian Technical Colleges. Apart from a brief inside page report in the Fairfax papers some months ago, which indicated that very few students are enrolled in these places, and therefore the cost per student is embarrassingly high, that particular white elephant has been beneath the radar.
John, it is very much an under-statement to say that Howard is more centralist than Whitlam. The latter even in the face of the intransigence of the Bjeljke-Petersen and Lewis Governments didn’t attempt to bypass the Constitution in his dealings with the States. His most radical step was to increase the proportion of tied (Section 96) grants. In comparison to Howard, Whitlam was a piker as a centralist.
Why don’t we just formally declare ourselves a US state and be done with the whole prolongued farce? Then we can just privatise our hospitals and enjoy all the benefits that trickle-down free market US-style capitalism is sure to bestow on us.
Howard does not seem to be taking over hospitals directly so much as fascilitating local communities to take them over with an initial injection of funds. There is no guarantee that the funding will flow long term so if done properly this could offer a pathway to decentralised medical service provision. Hopefully as and when the funding is turned off a tax cut ensures that funds are returned to individuals and communities so that this can work out okay.
Homer – abolishing local government would lead to further centralisation all be it on a regional basis. I don’t think garbage collection and park maintenance should be handed to a mini-state. If we really need to abolish a tier of government then federal government is the logical tier to abolish. The states could keep free movement and adopt a NATO style pact for defence. A distributed military capacity would make us far less likely to participate in wars of agression.
Terje,
I don’t think you are understnding my point. By creating a whole lot of new states you could get rid of the states but maintain the facade but making them merely larger councils in reality.
You cannot abolish them however.
Maybe it is time for the States to take back the power to raise their own income tax that was given away during the second world war.
It would mena that they would be responsible for any backlash, but this is surely better than what we have today. The Federal Government attritude at the moment appears to be no resposibility for anythig but they have the right to imposed their will whenever the they want.
What is happening must lead to waste and breakdown of all state bodies.
It is important for the present matter to be sorted out. At the very least there should be some type of vote on this matter at the next election. A referendrum on what we want our goverment system to be. Changing the Constitution by stealth is not acceptable.
I do not believe that what Mr Howard is saying that we don’t care how or who does things. I, for one do. I consider my vote for both layers of Government is important.
I’ve argued before how the reversal of the way in which we elect the 2 Houses would cease marginal seat pork barrelling and concentrate on national issues important to all. Allows the partys to protect their best talent at the top of the ticket and avoids local branch stacking. Minor party voters need a seat at the table too, if only to force them to ditch their more lunar policies. The Rann Govt has proven how coalitions work well in the absence of an overall majority. They have an absolute majority now and retained a Nat as Water Minister.
We need Federal control of things like the MD basin (basically mangement power over water allocation), for obvious reasons, but Rudd is heading in the right direction which should be, hand all money to the States totally untied and let them compete with each other on best practice service provision and competitive tax minimisation. Devonport hospital joins Kalgoorlie gold tax, Qld sugar seats and Syd airport as glaring pork.
When the founding fathers set up Australia it took many years to work out what the checks and balances should be. The Federal model is used in a number of places. A small country like New Zealand with a population as big as that of Sydney can have a national/regional model however the distances of Australia demand government which is closer to where people live. Other large democratic countries also operate on a three tier model.
The problem with the current rush to do away with the state/federal balance is that the states gave up their ability to tax in WW2 for the greater good. The current government seems to believe that it can run down funding and services delivered by states as a precursor to taking functions over. However we have a national capital which is remote from the everyday experiences of the majority of people.
If the Howard government really wants to have responsibility for a far greater range of additional services, including hospitals, it should do so with proper consideration, rather than refusing to operate through the COAG process until after the election, as Tony Abbott has done. Whilst a strong Central Government who promises to solve all of our problems is attractive it is an idea that should be put to referendum rather than to do it by stealth and through misusing the constitutional powers.
Of course as the High Court has shown with the Workchoices and Security legislation it is prepared to stand up for the government rather than the principles of the Australian Constitution.
Jill, you put the case much better than I did. Serious debate is needed on the present state of our Federal and State Government responsibilities and what they should be.
This is such a blatantly political act that you really have to wonder whether it will play all that well, even in Tasmania.
I know Devonport well. I think it and its hinterland are among the loveliest parts of Australia. But it’s just a big country town. There’s barely 21,000 people living there. Having major hospitals in Devonport *and* 50ks down the road in Burnie, is ridiculous.
The other thing is that the geography of the situation is not that well appreciated outside of Tasmania. The ‘Devonport’ hospital is located a good 10 ks away near (not in) Latrobe. Latrobe is not a suburb of Devonport (as I’ve read in some commentary elsewhere), but is a tiny country town. How a hospital came to be placed *near* Latrobe is a whole other story of political pork barrelling, but if you live in Devonport you can’t just stroll down the street to the hospital. You need to get in your car or get a taxi to get there. If you have to do that, you may as well head down the highway in the opposite direction to Burnie. And it has to be said that thanks to decades of pork-barrelling, the Northwest coast of Tasmania must have the best and most lightly used highways in Australia.
The final thing that makes me drop my jaw in amazement is that it wasn’t just funding that made the state government decide to rationalise the hospitals. There’s not enough doctors and nurses available and not enough patients to justify two major hospitals so close to each other. If Devonport is to be maintained, then it will probably have a serious impact on the viability of the Burnie hospital.
I’m just staggered by this.
Our current system is working and australia is not divided, so it would be of no benefit to change the system. Europe is a federation of states without a constitution, it is divided along lines of ethnicity, economy and history, has no real linkage to the ordinary citizen and looks set to fail miserably. What we have in Australia is a balance of power, states vs states vs federal govt all vieing for the voter’s attention.
Talk of changing the entire governance of Aust is absurd, it just wont happen.
Worse than the blatant porking is the constant bucketing of the state governments. Sure they could do better but I seldom hear a word about the roles of the two most powerful unions in the country, namely the AMA and college of surgeons with regards to the decline in public health. Has the 3 something billion dollars in private health subsidies ever been shown to give a true cost benefit to consumers. Fehowarth and Terje, great stuff. Hand back some of the taxing powers to the states and make the federal government much smaller. More competition between states. What a great thought.
rog,
I disagree
Our current system isn’t working.
What we have in Australia is a parasitically distorted tumour in power, states plus states plus federal govt all with their filthy hands continually in the voter’s pockets.
“the entire governance of Aust is absurd”, a series of self regulating monopolies that have mandated themselves a pay rise every year since federation, regardless of the standard of (non)service they provide.
What is absurd is Australia has to waste 10% of GDP on an extra tier of government that is unnecessary and actually inhibits good governance. The UK has a Westminster system with only 2 tiers and it has work well for a hundred years.
Unfortunately you are right changing it “just won’t happen� but I live in hope.
As a “CONSTITUTIONALIST� and one who daily read and re-read the Constitution Convention Debates to create the Federation have great respect for the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution (considering it in their time slot). Sure, we may do wise to amend the Constitution such as all together delete Subsection 51(xxvi) but lets not blame the Constitution for the ills of the High Court of Australia. You see, if the High Court of Australia was not abusing and misusing its powers to somehow seek to social engineer the Constitution to their liking we would not have this ongoing problem. What we see is that the Commonwealth legislate and, such as with WorkChoices, the High Court of Australia then hands down a deceptive judgment, concealing what the true intentions of the Framers of the constitution was, and so granting their political masters, so to say, what they wanted, no matter how unconstitutional the legislation might be.
I view, judges to be appointed to the High Court of Australia should be recommended by the States to the Governor-General and AFTER such a person has successfully completed a test in constitutional competence as to avoid we get yet another judge who declares not to hand down a judgment because he doesn’t know the constitutional issue before the Court.
Constitutionally, with approval of the electors by referendum in 1946 Section (xxiiiA) was inserted. What people may not realise is that the moment the commonwealth legislated then it was sole federal powers. Hence the States cannot provide funding as it is the total responsibility of the Commonwealth of Australia!
But, the Commonwealth has been (wrongly) blaming the States for lack of funding even so it pursued and obtained a successful referendum to have the sole powers to fund hospitals.
Actually, lunacy, the poor, etc, all also fall under Commonwealth powers but here again the Commonwealth blames the States.
The Framers of the Constitution also made clear that no one owns WATER, and they refused to give the powers to the Commonwealth of Australia as it could otherwise interfere with land values, etc other then in regard of determining “reasonable use� as to navigation of rivers. Yet, Malcolm Turnbull himself is on record the Federal Government did nothing for 50 years despite knowing of the over-allocation of water! Now seeking to make out that despite of this, they can do better.
Keep in mind that even if some States sign up the commonwealth cannot use Consolidated Revenue for this but must charge those participating States a special charge for cost to fund the project!
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear either the States or the Commonwealth had legislative powers! As such it is nonsense to argue that there is a two tier government system in place. The fact is that the Commonwealth by DE Facto robbed State legislative powers and then seek to blame the States for the problems.
“Citizenship� is another problem, which is and remains a State legislative power yet the Commonwealth purports that this “political status� somehow is now a “nationality�, which it isn’t.
There is more, lots more.
For more see my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH and my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com
Quoth Tony G “The UK has a Westminster system with only 2 tiers and it has work well for a hundred years.”
From Wikipedia : “The United Kingdom is divided into four home nations or constituent countries. Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland each have a parliament or assembly and a devolved executive. England has no national parliament or government; it is ruled directly by the UK government.” In any case you have to run a more sophisticated argument than the number of tiers of government decreasing efficiency. These are complex arguments involving the considerations of the optimal amount of democracy and require long term planning . Only the naive would think that what the Federal government done in Devonport has anything to do with long term optimal governance. It is a cheap gimcrack and is going to be a very inefficient allocation of scarce health funds.
I really don’t care what you think of Malcolm Fraser, but he mounts a reasonable defence of the States here: http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/we-must-stop-this-erosion-of-australian-democracy/2007/08/02/1185648056872.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Bill,
It is not that complicated.
The UK is a unitary state with devolved parliaments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_state
“In any case you have to run a more sophisticated argument than the number of tiers of government decreasing efficiency.�
Are you arguing that the buck passing between the tiers, the states inhibited revenue raising power, the duplication of many parliaments and their associated departments of health, education, roads, law enforcement, revenue, treasury, water, planning, plus many others etc etc…. are increasing efficiency?
The only people that can not see the current system is “decreasing efficiency� are probably stuck in that system and “can’t see the forest for the trees� or have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
“These are complex arguments involving the considerations of the optimal amount of democracy and require long term planning�
Not really Bill
In Australia’s case, the optimal amount of democracy is less government.
Less Government equals less power to worry about separating and a bill of rights would protect people from that power.
They do it in the UK
Although initially Howard’s foray into the Devonport hospital may look like marginal pork barrelling, we might have to consider the move was a calculated on to test the waters of a major shift in health policy. Only last year the SA Health Minister Lea Stevens (albeit a pretty useless Minister who has been replaced now), threw up her hands at the problems of health and offered to hand the lot over to the Feds. Given the mishmash of overlapping jurisdictional issues, aged care and hospital care in particular, perhaps that set the Feds thinking. Is the offer to the Devonport Community a forerunner of things to come? Basically the Feds are seriously testing the water here, because they must have known that their offer would see many more communities lining up for a slice of the action as they are now.
Perhaps the States will wither on the vine, becoming large councils overseeing and outsourcing development whilst local councils battle with graffiti and potholes.
Tony G,
An interesting link to unitary government. A link which doesn’t establish superiority for this form of government.
Your argument for efficient government would be more compelling if it wasn’t for the absolute efficiency shown by the Nazis and Fascists last century. The basic mistake with the efficiency paradigm is that it doesn’t necessarily deliver good government.
It is also a mistake to assume that a unitary government is the same as small government. Prof Q in his original post shows that it can lead in fact to duplication.
It is a concentration of power that is the greatest impediment to democratic government. Whilst there are many who are prepared to ditch the long term considerations for short term benefit you may like to consider what happens if a government is returned to power which acts as the fascists did in Germany in the 1930’s or the many other recent examples such as Robert Mugabe. Teh Howard Government has shown an uncomfortable liking for aggregation of power ujnto itself.
The states offer alternative viewpoints and the councils offer yet another protection. Without a Bill of Rights there is no other protection from power hungry centralised government. Whilst despotic rule may seem unlikely, a free people should never take freedom for granted, as democracy is a historical aberration where monarchy, despotism, military rule and other forms of oppression have largely held sway.
In NSW the long backlog of unapproved DAs compelled the NSW govt to take full control of developments over a certain $ amount. And now those decisions all fall to one man, Frank Sartor.
There is no real evidence that “democracy” has had any real role in development other than to frustrate it. Councils became chat clubs without any means to bring resolution and council officers were reluctant to approve controversial proposals without councillors approval.
Jill,
it is hard to comprehend how you can relate efficiency of government to regimes that have annihilated their society and themselves.
In fact the UK centralist government you abhor defeated those regimes and still effectively governs its society today. IMHO this is a clear demonstration of a reasonably “efficient governmentâ€? and it happens to operate quite well on two tiers.
The UKs two tiered centralist democratic government does not suffer any impediment due to its “concentration of power” as you describe. Where is the evidence that removing one of the three tiers of our government will lead to a fascist regime?
“The states offer alternative viewpoints” and that’s all they offer, because efficient service providers they are not. The only “protection” my local council offer is to keep the rats well nourished so they are protected from disease as they live off the garbage the council neglect to collect in a timely and competent fashion.
(I live in Waverley, Australia’s filthiest municipality, courtesy of Mayor George Newhouse’s propensity to employ parking officers instead of garbage collectors)
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/01/29/1169919260122.html?from=top5
http://www.abc.net.au/sydney/stories/s1598156.htm
It seems extravagant to have to pay extra for “alternative viewpoints” and to keep the rats well feed.
Australia’s federated system is a mongrel. It is a bastard brought about by the marriage of a US styled federation and a Westminster one.
The balancing power of the states was lost when they transferred the bulk of their revenues to the commonwealth, so we already have a quasi utilitarian government. The anachronistic baggage we have inherited (an extra tier) should be discarded.
As outlined somewhere above, amalgamate state and local governments and if you are concerned about concentration of power, do as both the US and UK have done and introduce a “Bill of Rights�.
Tony G :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A2459388#1
Your statement that the U.K. government is composed of two tiers is false get over it.
Tony G, you are wrong when you say that the United Kingdom still has the “efficientâ€? same government that defeated the Nazis. Since the start of the 20th century, they have lost Ireland. Scottish independence movements have gathered steam they never had a century ago. They have found it necessary to introduce parliaments or assemblies in Northern Ireland (twice), Scotland, Wales and London. There are ongoing calls for a parliament or assembly for England or parts of it. Beneath these varied subnational legislatures and executives, you have local councils. And at the top, you’ve now got the European Union. None of these four levels are directly comparable to the levels we have here in Australia, but there’s only one way to count them—four.
And as four using a piece of paper to protect our rights, ask the people of China and the former Soviet Union how well that works. I would rather use a mechanism rather more fundamental to human behavior—greed for power—to make sure no-one gets too much. Not to suggest a Bill of Rights is useless, but it can only be one small component in the protection of our freedoms, and should never be too heavily relied on.
There is only one sentence in your whole post that’s correct (aside from your comments on your local government)—Australia’s federal system has become a mongrel. Let the states be (financially) independent of the Commonwealth and we will be the better for it.
Alex,
“you are wrong when you say that the United Kingdom still has the “efficient� same government that defeated the Nazis.�
Didn’t they loose Ireland in the 1920s some fifteen years before they defeated the Nazis. So I put it to you “that the United Kingdom still has the “efficientâ€? same government that defeated the Nazis”.
http://www.parliament.uk/about/history/keydates_1901_present.cfm
“four levels are directly comparable to the levels we have here in Australia, but there’s only one way to count them—four.”
“In a unitary state, any sub-governmental units can be created or abolished, and have their powers varied, by the central government. The process in which sub-government units and/or regional parliaments are created by a central government is known as devolution. A unitary state can broaden and narrow the functions of such devolved (sub-)governments without formal agreement from the affected bodies.”
You can call it 4 levels if you like, but I will call it 2 or maybe one.
Parliament and the devolved political bodies (which have been granted powers on a regional level).
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/members/electing_mps.cfm
“And as four using a piece of paper to protect our rights, ask the people of China and the former Soviet Union how well that works.�
I fail to see the nexus between Fascism, Communism or Nazism and the UKs utilitarian system, which you and Jill put forward.
“I would rather use a mechanism rather more fundamental to human behavior—greed for power—to make sure no-one gets too much.�
Well, unfortunately, it is the elite political ruling class getting “too much� in Australia and a culling is needed.
Tony G,
You are confusing a number of issues and selecting a solution which is unlikely to deliver the results you are so keen on.
I haven’t said that I abhor the British Government anywhere. The rise of the Scottish and other local British parliaments however do weaken your arguments. I recognise that the British parliamentary system came with a great deal of angst and bloodshed over a millenium whereas in Australia our democracy has had a far shorter and more civil development. That is why is it important that if we are to make changes we should give the consequences proper consideration. After all those who took away the stolen generations were outcome focussed – they just had no appreciation of what the outcomes would be as they gave no voice to those affected. It was an efficient but flawed process.
You should consider, if you are unable to impact on Waverley council, how can you possibly impact on a far more remote and powerful Federal Government? Councils are the most accessible form of government having councillors with smaller electorates and living in their local community.
You could also consider the angst that we undertook at the end of the twentieth century over a largely ceremonial position – the Governor General or a President. At that stage Mr Howard was of the school that wished to cling to monarchy. It was a process that took time and money and effort and ended in the proper constitutional result – a referendum.
In comparison a desire to get rid of the states by stealth and in the heat of an election campaign is radical indeed and could have many unintended consequences for the concentration of power. It would almost certainly impact badly on those living in smaller states which still have the majority of the land mass of the country.
The funding of one hospital in Devonport after a refusal by the Health Minister, Tony Abbott, to negotiate with the states over more general Hospital funding was bad policy and will mean that every change proposed by the states to deal with the pressures on their hospitals as a result of funding pressures, caused by reduced Federal funding, can be undermined.
It’s a bit like the husband who cuts the household budget and then goes out to do the shopping for treats. The kids may be inclined to blame Mum and see Dad as the saviour at first. However when Dad gets sick of the extra shopping and has less money to spend on those things he wants, the kids are likely to get potatoes, not pudding, again.
Tony, concerning Ireland you’re right. I’d edited my post to change the effect but hadn’t changed the content—whoops.
Concerning your quote, I don’t understand why devolved levels should be counted differently from sovereign ones, but if you’re doing that then we only have two. The local councils could be legislated out of existence tomorrow if the state governments wanted to. I also fail to understand how come a sovereign government leads to a particular inefficiency that a devolved one doesn’t. In any case, it contradicts your next paragraph so I will assume I’ve thoroughly misunderstood your intention.
But… you count the UK as potentially having only a single layer of government, yet you count us with three. Why do you count the local governments in Australia but not the local governments in the UK? If anything, my understanding is that English local government councils do more than ours.
I did not put forward any nexus between unitary government and fascism. I do however think that a federation is a better protection than not having a federation. A Bill of Rights is also a protection, but to a greater extent requires the consent of those whose power it limits to be effective.
And finally, there is no way cutting out the states will ease the concentration of power the politicians have. Give us one government instead of eight and you suddenly have much fewer people with much more power. If your aim is to reduce the number of politicans, it would be safer to do so by getting rid of the Commonwealth, but retaining free trade and passage between the states (amongst other things). This way, no politician commands more power than he can muster up in one state, instead of the whole continent. Also, by having more politicians, you are increasing the chances an outsider can get in and helping to reduce the problems of a developing “élite political class�. More people with less power, not less with more.
[…] John Quiggin is justifiably cynical about the Government’s actions, and links it to a series of other attempts to “buy out” the states to make political gain without practical improvements. The comments following his entry provide a robust discussion of the issues that need addressing in terms of the nature and roles of our levels of government, and the ways that these Howard initiatives fail to meet the country’s needs. […]
I see Labor MPs are lining up behind Howard’s policy now
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22191357-2682,00.html?from=public_rss