Speech by Jim Snow

Beyond Federation Co-convenor

5^th Shed a Tier Congress, 28^th Jun 2002

Those of us involved in "Beyond Federation' are on a winning streak. A review of events since I introduced an unsuccessful motion in this parliament calling on the Executive to examine the feasibility of a 2 tier system of government shows a lot of talk about coordination, lots of ministerial councils and many cross border agreements - the problems continue to abound. A review of where we are - those of us supporting the reforms called for in our charter - shows some successes that are worth building on. Those who want change include:

· Those who want to see more sensible arrangements for local government so that it no longer has to cope with 2 levels of centralised government;

· Those who want to see strong regional or county or territory governments;

· Those who want New States, who respond to the desire of people to be freed from what is often distant and unresponsive government.

All those opinions are based on at least some of the following broad arguments:

· We need a cheaper and more efficient government system. In 1986 the Auditor General reported that $6 billion given to the states could not be accounted for. Then there is the squabbling. We do not have to research our old files: the last 2 years show that there are plenty of weeds in our system of government - annuals, perrenials and evergreens. In December last year we again had our state and territory leaders arguing whether Commonwealth funding was fairly apportioned with 3 states saying that they were unfairly subsidising the 5 others to the extent of $2 billion per year[1]. The rest of Australia yawned as another annual discord loomed. Mark Drummond's figures have shown that taxpayers may be unfairly paying out at least $37 billion per year to keep those governments going[2]. Our health system suffers from the passing of costs - for example the cost of providing for nursing home type patients in hospitals are passed from one government to another[3]. When the costs are passed on to a more expensive system the taxpayer is often the loser. My former parliamentary colleague, Ted Mack also lists taxes, environment, public policy, education, transport and says that conflict results in inefficiency and frustration in almost every area of public policy[4]

Another argument for change is that

· The administration of laws and regulations are inconvenient, unfair and dangerous. There are goo9d arguments for different regulations in different parts of the country but we have failed to work out where we must have uniform laws and where there should be flexibility. Ted Mack recently found it inconvenient when he went to buy a tyre in Adelaide and was told that the tyre would not be legal in NSW[5]. The laws are unfair when Section 100 of the constitution is unable to achieve a cooperative approach to the management of the Murray Darling river system as the states, in the words of Christopher Pine MP, jealously guard the powers granted to them[6]. Later today Terry Kiernan may raise similar problems felt by the people of Captains Flat with their water supply. When a Doctor phoned me from Cootamundra a few weeks ago and asked me to dispense a pain relieving drug to a cancer patient visiting Canberra I did so only to be told the next day that I had dispensed the drug illegally because it was written in another state. I'm glad that I dispensed that urgent medication, but what do I do now that I have been warned? That rule is inconvenient and may be dangerous. The potential dangers were shown a few weeks ago when a 2 year old stalemate over laws governing the use of the national DNA database prevented vital clues being sent to the Northern Territory in a murder case. It was reported that the commonwealth's $50 million Crimtrac DNA database has been rendered virtually inoperable because of differences in state laws governing protocols and procedures for sampling and exchange of forensic samples across borders[7]. Other running sores in our federal system include a failure of police commissioners, in April 2002, to back promises to get tough on gun trafficking[8], and a worry that a federally established corporate takeover panel, though impressive in its operation, may be constitutionally illegal[9].

All of the options for change those of us here proclaim will provide

· Opportunities for new initiatives. The study "Industry in the Regions'[10] showed that the firms in non-metropolitan regions sold $9.3 billion in 2001 with 18% of the firms confident and doing well - and mostly exporting. It is clear to me that the figures are better in the cities and that in the country more local power would lead to more local initiative. Tourism is one area where we hear reports that "Regional Tourism suffers as visitors keep to the cities'[11] probably partly due to the fact that state tourism bureaucracies are in the cities.

Is it good enough to rely on those advantages to get us a massive audience? I have been talking about these issues for nearly 20 years and researching longer. It seems to me that should build on our arguments and

1. Show that we can bridge the growing gap between government and the governed.

2. Restore the Jefferson concept of people being involved in government

3. Restore the Jefferson concept of civic virtue or civic responsibility in our neighborhoods and workplaces

The huge drop in membership of the major political parties and the large drop in loyal voters evidence that big gap between government and the governed. The branch members and supporters are disillusioned with the decisions of those at the top and lose interest. The parties are "losing it' fast and the action is shifting to special interest groups - industry groups, organisations. Yet our parliaments continue to be dominated by the parties because we, the people, though we can see the logic of replacing the system, worry about changing it in case we risk what we have already got[12]. Even the old adversarial system - a vestige of the sword fighting days, which the old English parliament graduated from - remains. Our tennis clubs and business meetings are naturally moving into a consensus style of decision making but not the Parliaments. By moving to stronger and more localised government - whether councils, regional assemblies or new states we can set up less adversarial administrations - the Australian Capital Territory approaches this but the parties still face the enemy across the table instead of sitting around a table.

There is another reason why we have to strengthen our communities by bringing government closer to them. As Ross Gittens says: Community interests have to be pursued within the communities themselves. There is no one else. There are no global monetary or fiscal authorities or other effective global or political or social institutions to exert real influence over the global economic system and none is in sight[13]. He is right. While we have growing global economic power there are no global regulations to control that power. The only resilience is in communities. Vietnam in the face of French and US allied confrontation; Afghanistan in the face of Soviet confrontation showed that community strength can beat great powers.

At federation a number of the founders declared that the constitution must be an evolving one. That has not happened. It seems to me that the best hope of change is through repeating the process that led to federation - discussion and exchange of ideas. There are plenty who have supported more sensible arrangements - 63 of the 126 groups that met under the Australia Consults initiative, many of them wanting 2 tiers of government[14]. Professors Geoffrey Blainey and Cheryl Saunders supported the notion that "Every region should be its own state'[15]. The David Syme Foundation wants the unification of the nation as a sovereign state under a new constitution. Wilson Tuckey, the federal local government minister set a parliamentary committee the task of examining "the capacity of local government to -take on an enhanced role in developing opportunities at a regional level including opportunities for councils and to examine rationalisation of roles and responsibilities between the levels of government, better use of resources and better quality services to local communities'. He is reported to have raised the issue of local government involvement in hospitals, education and police[16]

The ground is well seeded. Why not recapture the spirit of Federation and, like the founders, debate the issues of representative democracy around the country? Why not progress from correcting the mistakes in our constitution to enhancing democracy and civic responsibility through the constitution? As the conductor, Carol Heimer said "We would not have great symphony orchestras if conductors focused only on keeping musicians from playing out of tune'. Our communities and workplaces are not in touch with government and government is not in touch with them - so our neighborhoods suffer and job fulfilment is lacking. The people are not sovereign and do not fulfil the ambition of democratic founders like Thomas Jefferson that the people should be part of government and will show responsibility towards others. Removal of a superflous, centralist level of government can give us the opportunity to strengthen individual, community and workplaces in government.

Finally, each of us has his or her own ideas. All too often we go too far in writing the prescription and ignore then feeling of the people - as happened with the republic. The challenge for us is to expose all our ideas to the community and let the people set the agenda.

[1] Canberra Times 1/12/01 "Quinlan opposes funding review'.

[2] Mark Drummond 18/10/01 "Updated cost savings estimations for national local model' <asc-discuss@goliath.apana.org.au>

[3] Senator Meg Lees to Shed a Tier Congress on Health (2002, Parliament House, Canberra)

[5] Ted Mack 20/4/02 at the College of Fine Arts University of NSW "Interface: A festival of ideas on Australia's media, education and democracy'.

[6] At The Murray Darling Shed a Tier Congress, Parliament House, Canberra, 2002

[7] The Australian 13/6/02 "DNA transfer to NT not legal', Chulov, Videnieks and Toohey

[8] Australian 17/4/02 "Top Police hold their fire'.

[9] Australian Terry McCrann p34 9-10 December 2000.

[10] Australian Industry Group and the Commonwealth Bank: "Industry in the Regions' June 2001

[12] AJ Brown "Dividing up affairs of state' Courier Mail 11/11/2000

[16] Sunday Telegraph 5/5/02 and Terms of Reference to Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration June 2002