Federal systems work best when there are clear delineations of responsibilities between the different tiers of government. Unfortunately, in 21st century Australia they seem to be becoming more and more blurred.
In the not too distant past in Australia, a citizen with a gripe about a state government policy would lobby the government to change the policy or, failing that, to change the government. Now it seems that the instinctive response in almost any policy area is to forget those two actions and instead call for the federal government to intervene.
While for many decades there had been an increasing Commonwealth role in many areas of traditional state responsibility, this trend certainly speeded up under the Howard Government. Thus far, there are no indications that it will slow under the Rudd Government.
At least one influential labour figure sees the Howard Government's centralism as having presented Labor with a gift. In the aftermath of the election, former ACTU Secretary, Bill Kelty, observed:
There will be one lasting contribution of the Coalition government and that is to provide unambiguous national power in dealing with the key issues of water, industrial relations, indigenous health and ultimately, public hospitals. Future governments can now use that power constructively and consensually.
It is easy to see why Kelty would think like this. John Howard was unapologetic about the federal government taking action when he believed it was required, commenting that he had ''little time for state parochialism''. The trouble was that in many areas the issue was not state parochialism, but state responsibility.
It is true that the states and territories squandered large chunks of the GST revenue through big spending on public service wages and recurrent programs, while neglecting to invest properly in renewing infrastructure. As critics pointed out the failings of State Labor Governments, the Federal Coalition decided not to leave it to their state colleagues to build a case for a change of state government, but instead decided to directly intervene.
The trend towards opportunistic intervention in state issues (''opportunistic federalism'' as it has been dubbed) grew apace, perhaps exhibited at its worst in last year's Commonwealth takeover of the Mersey Hospital in Devonport. While the people of Devonport were understandably upset by the loss of services at the local hospital, it certainly appears as if the decision of the Tasmanian Government to rationalise health services in north western Tasmania was a logical one, given the availability of medical professionals and funds.
Around the nation, at a local level, federal MPs increasingly focused on local problems in areas of state responsibility such as schools and policing. Huge increases in MPs' printing and postage budgets exacerbated this tendency. It was realised that specific local material in newsletters and brochures was more likely to be read than general policy information, so the simple need for local content often took precedence over respect for constitutional boundaries between tiers of government.
By its piecemeal involvement in a variety of state issues, the Howard Government achieved the counter-productive outcome of making people feel that the Commonwealth was equally culpable for the failings of the state governments in areas like hospitals, roads and ports. This was backed up by research on the 2006 Queensland State Election which showed that a significant number of voters blamed the Federal Government for failing to fix the state's hospitals apparently ''believing that there are enough funds at a federal level to fix everything''. By the time last November's federal election came around one commentator observed that ''almost the entire election has been fought out on state government turf''.
After 100 days it is too early to be definitive about how the Rudd Government will impact on the Federation, however the signs are that it will follow the approach advocated by Kelty.
Anyone who believed that having all governments of the same political persuasion would solve the nation's problems has already had the Victorian Government's on-going refusal to sign up to the national water plan to add to the many historical examples of unco-operative federalism.
In 2005, Kevin Rudd delivered a paper entitled The Case for Cooperative Federalism, a sentiment that seems to have been maintained in most of his public utterances. The promotion of the concept of co-operation continued in the early days of the new government when it was claimed that the Commonwealth providing an additional $150 million to the states to cut hospital waiting lists was some sort of federalist break-through. It was, of course, nothing of the sort. Providing some extra money was hardly likely to meet opposition.
What undoubtedly would arouse controversy is Rudd's statement that he will take over running all the country's 750 public hospitals if state and territory governments have not agreed to a national reform plan by the middle of 2009. He has said that such a move would be designed to ''end the blame game between Canberra and the states on health and hospitals''. This is hardly what most would consider ''co-operative federalism''.
Outside health, the federalism issue that received the most publicity in the new Government's first 100 days has been its intervention in the delivery of infrastructure. It has been reported that the Prime Minister recently told his Cabinet colleagues that the setting up of Infrastructure Australia ''could be the most important move in commonwealth-state relations since Federation''. If accurate, this comment reflects both hyperbole and over-optimism.
It is unclear what will ensure that the Commonwealth will make wiser infrastructure choices than the individual states. Whatever the final composition of the body, headed by Sir Rod Eddington, it is hard to see how they are better placed to determine infrastructure priorities than democratically elected state governments.
One can see conflict on various fronts. The first is debate over how best to deal with a particular infrastructure bottleneck. In Melbourne, Eddington is currently heading an inquiry into transport options to the north of the CBD and, whatever mix of new roads and new public transport solutions he might propose, the ideological decision that entails can ultimately only be decided by a democratically elected government.
Even when the roads versus public transport ideological dispute is not involved there will be the prospect of many more issues like that of the Goodna bypass where there was conflict between the Commonwealth and the Queensland Government in the dying days of the Howard Government about the best actual solution to a road congestion issue -- surely a decision best decided by a state government.
As well as conflict about how best to address existing problems there will undoubtedly be conflict between the states. The howls of protest from the Western Australians who felt that the Howard Government did not provide them with a sufficient proportion of Auslink roads funding will only increase as, under the Rudd Government, the Commonwealth determines priorities in an expanded number of infrastructure areas. Are state governments and state-based chambers of commerce going to meekly accept that the upgrade of their port is not a ''national priority''?
Yet, many of those who one might expect to be critical are actually praising the Rudd Government for its actions. Some of the same business people expressing concern at the prospect of Kim Carr running a more interventionist industry policy seem perfectly relaxed about his fellow left winger Anthony Albanese running an interventionist infrastructure policy.
Large sections of the business community seem to believe that centralising power in Canberra will not only deliver consistent and less bureaucratic regulation, but also mean more decisive and business-friendly decision making. It is hard to see what evidence there is of better Commonwealth decision making over the years. One needs only to compare the success of the purchasing decisions of the Commonwealth Defence Department and your typical state's roads authority to see that the evidence, if anything, supports the contrary view.
If the Australian Federation is to be improved all involved need to appreciate that what is required is not coercion of the states by the Commonwealth, nor is it co-operation with both parties having a finger in every pie. What is required is a system of cohabitation by equal parties that guarantees the states and territories explicit responsibility for key areas.
In asserting the ongoing value of the role of the states, there is no reason to preclude a reassessment of which areas are the responsibility of which tiers of government. As part of that reassessment there should also be consideration of whether there are any ways that the world's worst example of vertical fiscal imbalance can be improved.
However, whatever the split up, and however wide the divide between the taxing powers and spending responsibility of different tiers of government, it is crucial that the federal government, accepts that if something is deemed a state area, the Commonwealth cedes any form of interfering or oversight role.
States should be able to make the key decisions about hospitals, schools or infrastructure in their domains. If they are not, the remedy lies with the voters in the states.
The Commonwealth needs to accept that they have equal partners in the running of the nation and the states need to accept the responsibility that entails.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment