Speech by Senator John Cherry
2nd Shed a Tier Congress
Canberra, 21 September 2001Why abolishing the states is good for regional Australia
It gives me great pleasure to address this conference today and thank Max Bradley for the invitation to speak.
The Democrats have always supported abolishing the States, and instituting a system of regional governments and community councils.
This would require political, constitutional and bureaucratic change, but we believe it is inevitable.
To quote a slogan for hair products "It won't happen overnight, - but it will happen". Forums such as this are an important start.
Our party's balloted policy has included a proposal to move to regional-based Governments for over 20 years.
We recognised the States as an historic anachronism then, and the argument is even more so now.
Earlier this year, our party membership reviewed our Constitutional policy and again confirmed the party's view that the States are way past their use by date. Our policy now reads:
"We strongly hold that the current three tiers of Government in Australia should be replaced by a more representative framework, where the States are replaced by Regional Governments and Local Councils are replaced by Community Councils that carry out the work of that regional framework."
Government has to get closer to the people.
In my home State of Queensland, the capital city Brisbane is closer to Melbourne than it is to the state's third city of Cairns. Brisbane is closer to Canberra than it is to the second city of Townsville.
And I think that distance is very much reflected in the quality of policy making.
In the most recent figures, the unemployment rate in Brisbane was 8.6%. The unemployment rate in Townsville was 11%, in Mackay it was 15%, in Rockhampton it was 14.5%.
Yet it was Brisbane being showered with projects - the Goodwill Games, a $150 million super stadium, a $100 million bus way, a $300 million city bypass and so forth.
This trend is evident right around Australia. In metro Sydney, the unemployment rate is around 5 and a half per cent. In non-metro New South Wales, is it over 8%, and twice the Sydney rate in centres like Cessnock, Newcastle, Coffs Harbour, Taree, Tweed Heads and Lismore.
In Victoria, the Melbourne unemployment rate is 6.6%, while that of country Victoria is a per cent higher, and rising to over 10% in centres like Maryborough, Benalla, Bairnsdale, Bendigo, the Latrobe, and much of Ballarat.
For some years, the Democrats have been talking about the "two-track" economy that is developing in Australia, whereby the metropolitan areas are thriving while the regions are withering on the vine.
It is my belief that our system of State Government is accelerating rather than reducing that trend, and that the regions would be better off with more control over their own destiny rather than answering to a distant State Government.
The fundamental problem I see with State Governments from a regional development perspective it that they are dominated, politically and economically, by their capital cities.
Right across the board, the States have let basic infrastructure and services wither in regional Australia, while engaging in the worst form of monumentalism in their capital cities.
This obsession with the capital cities is a direct result of the regions being massively underrepresented in cabinets around Australia, particular State Labor Governments.
In New South Wales, 37% of the population lives outside the metropolitan area, but only 20% of the State Ministers do.
In Victoria, 28% live outside the metro area, but only 11% of Ministers, in Queensland, 55% live outside the metro area, but only 32% of Ministers, and in West Australia 27% live outside the metro area, but only 15% of Ministers.
In all, the regions, are receiving just half the representation at State Cabinet level that they should be entitled to. Not surprising, their interests are ignored in decision-making.
Whether it be the Kennett Liberal Government or the Carr or Beattie Labor Governments, the States have focused too much attention on building monuments and infrastructure in the capital cities rather than the regions.
As a result, unemployment rates in regional Australia are much higher than in metropolitan Australia, reflecting the lack of policy attention.
The parlous state of Australia's railways is another example of regional policy failure.
The New South Wales Government has starved the state rail system of capital spending in regional areas while committing billions to new commuter lines and freeways in Sydney.
Earlier this week, I met representatives of the Lachlan Region Transport Committee, who represent 14 councils in central New South Wales.
What they wanted was simple - get the big trucks carrying wheat, timber and mining products off local council roads and back onto the rail system where they belong.
But the rail system is a state responsibility, and the track quality has been allowed to deteriorate so much, that large chunks of even the main trunk lines are reduced to 20 km an hour track speeds.
The branch lines are not being maintained at all.
According to a recent audit by the Australian National Rail Track Commission, it would take just $507 million to bring our key national trunk lines up to a reasonable standard. But the states are just not interested.
Instead, more and more money is going into metropolitan rail lines and freeways, and the occasional interstate highway connecting the capital cities.
It is little wonder that the rural revolt is gathering strength round Australia.
Australia's regions would be much better off if they severed their links with the capital cities and had more control over their own affairs.
I predict that the real push to abolish the States will eventually come from regional Australia, whose tolerance with the current political structure is clearly wearing thin.
Something as drastic as abolishing the states, gets strong reactions from all sorts of people.
Most people have a belief that three tiers of government are too many, that there are too many politicians and the fewer politicians the better.
Meanwhile State politicians and premiers are up in arms at the belief that the world will end without state governments.
But let's look at the trend in the last few years. The incremental step of Council amalgamations means that many local government areas are larger, larger economy of scale and almost a regional level of government.
Services have not declined as a result.
So some steps are being made.
Australia should be working towards the most effective form of government for the future rather than continuing a 100 year-old system which does not efficiently and readily deliver the services Australians expect.
It is not just a question of Australia being over governed, with nine governments and 822 politicians overseeing a population the size of greater London.
The current system is inefficient because it encourages buck passing, cost shifting and blame shifting between the States and the Commonwealth.
Delivery of health services and environmental programs are just some of the areas where national strategic planning with implementation carried out at the regional level would be far more efficient.
Wherever I go throughout Australia, the same complaints about buck passing and cost shifting arise from health professionals and consumers.
Environmental concerns such as the degradation of the Murray Darling Basin, do not stop at state borders, and regional based organisations could be better equipped to deal with such issues.
Senator Lees, the Democrats spokesperson on health has established a health funding model based on pooling all health funding and allocating it on a per capita basis, directly to regional areas, that would use the funds to provide medical, hospital, allied health, aged care and community care for their populations.
State governments are unlikely to vote themselves out of existence in the near future but it is time we put the issue on the table for debate, as the change is inevitable.
Regional governments can make real changes to the environment and socially.
Environment:
The Australian Democrats acknowledge the prominent role that local government and state government can and do have in environment degradation and also environment protection.
But with over 630 local government areas ranging in size from Peppermint Grove in WA at 1.5 square kilometres, to East Pilbara at several hundreds of thousands of square kilometres, land use planning, managing environmental risk and Crown lands are a key feature of local government jurisdiction.
However, there is a lack of resources and a constant battle between State and Federal governments.
Many environmental protection projects are neglected not from a lack of will, but a lack of direction as to who does what. Buck passing and blame shifting is the name of the game.
The environmental situation in outback Australia is not like the environmental situation in any of the State capitals. Broken Hill has little to do with the Sydney basin, however is a lot closer to Coober Pedy both geographically and environmentally.
There have been attempts to address environmental protection by local councils, and example of this Cities for Climate Protection program. 103 Australian local councils representing half of the population have now signed up to the program.
And many have set ambitious targets for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. 28 councils have set a target of cutting emissions to 20% below 1996 levels by 2010, four - Maroochy in Queensland, and Marion, Mitcham and Unley have gone further with setting targets of cutting to 20% below 1994 levels, while a further three in NSW - Rockdale, Mosman and Willoughby have set an equally ambitious target of getting emissions 25% below 1995 levels by 2010.
But this too shows that in something such as greenhouse emissions, even neighbouring local councils can set different targets on an issue that effects us all.
The area of waste management is also one in which local government is swimming against a tide of federal and state government apathy.
The attitude in the higher levels of government has been largely to let local government sink or swim. This needs to change for real progress to be in this important environmental area.
Socially
Whether we are talking about drug abuse, childcare, lack of affordable housing, the environment, or services for the elderly and people with disabilities, there are gaps in the system.
The constant debate between state and federal over who is going to solve the crisis in health, nursing homes or housing.
But who is shouldering the responsibility for keeping communities intact when jobs disappear, services are cut, and user-pays is embraced.
Local government is often asked to take on the responsibility without being offered a place - let alone an equal place - at the negotiating table.
State and federal governments often rely on local government to carry out the fine print of their grand plans.
However, as you would be aware the communication between federal and local government rarely sounds like the partnership it is supposed to be.
As a next step, a Constitution Convention style National Summit could be held to talk about the integration of all three levels, with full regional representation.
Out of that could be proposed referenda about changes to the constitution that recognise the existence and the role of regional governments, a modernising of the constitution.
What would regional Government look like? Well, that is a matter that we need to get a public debate about.
I believe that the movement to abolish the States will not develop legs unless we develop models which increase the representativeness and responsiveness of the regional government to the people.
The new system needs to be unambiguously better, clearly preferable to the existing model, to win the case for change.
The developments in the United Kingdom provide an example of this.
The new regional assemblies established in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have been deliberately constructed to be more inclusive, representative and responsive than the distant dictatorship of Westminster.
A fundamental part of improving the quality of representation has been proportional representation.
This ensures that all major viewpoints are represented and the tyranny of the majority does not turn executive government into an elected dictatorship.
The fact that no party holds a majority in any of the regional assemblies has forced power sharing, and the introduction of a wide range of additional accountability and community participation mechanisms.
In many respects, the Scottish Parliament probably now leads the English speaking world in its preparedness to open up its processes.
Britain also provides for a level of representation at the local council level, again an important development if we are to re-engage the Australian population with the political process.
My local council is the Brisbane City Council. It has almost half a million ratepayers, represented by just 27 councillors. As a regional council, it is a fine initiative, providing citywide planning.
As a local council, it is a dismal failure, with councillors too remote to provide any effective representation on local issues.
At the other extreme, Adelaide has 29 councils. This provides an excellent link between local communities and their local representatives, but no real semblance of regional development or planning at a local government level.
That role has been assumed by the State, for better or for worse.
In Britain, the main executive functions devolved to the regional assemblies are health, education, local government, social services, housing, economic development, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, food, transport, tourism, the environment, sport, heritage, and the arts.
Scotland also has responsibility for the legal system, penal matters and policing, and extensive legislative powers.
As far as finance is concerned, all three administrations are funded by a block grant from Westminster—which is indexed. Within this grant they have complete spending discretion.
Scotland also has the power to increase or decrease the basic rate of income tax by up to three pence in the pound.
Discussion is now centring on devolution within England itself, with the development of eight new English Regional Development Agencies, scrutinised by regional chambers drawn from local government business, trade unions, voluntary bodies and other local interests.
Overall, though, the change has been remarkable. To quote Professor Robert Hazell of the Constitution Unit at the University College of London:
"It is an extraordinary achievement—to transform a highly centralised state into a devolved and quasi-federal system of government in the space of only three years."
Where to for Australia then?
Our federal system is clearly failing. The control of the purse strings by Canberra has increased the powers of the Commonwealth at the expense of the states for decades.
The reaction by the States appears to have been to increase their powers at the expense of local Government.
The relevance of the States is rapidly declining.
When Queensland Premier Wayne Goss announced he was running for federal politics in 1998, he did so because he said the federal arena was where all the big issues were decided.
Federal politics is about policy, he said. The states are just about management.
Do we need 600 full time politicians and thousands more state senior bureaucrats to be doing just management?
Why can't we create a political system that unleashes the creative energy of our regions and our local communities to address their problems without state "managers" interfering?
The Democrats believe that the debate about abolishing the states and the debate about improving the quality of our democracy must go hand in hand.
Australia needs to drag our democracy and our constitutional arrangements into the 21st century.
This conference and this network have a huge task ahead of it in getting this debate going.
But as Margaret Mead once said:
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
(2600 words)
Return to home page.
Go to archive page.