8th Shed a Tier Congress, Albury, 19-20 July 2003
By Barrie Smillie*
(A paper very similar to this one was first presented at a meetings of the Abolish State Governments! Political party in Sydney, March 2001)
The act of Federation in 1901 amounted to the signing of a contract between the colonies which became the states and the resultant Commonwealth. The terms of the contract are set out in our federal Constitution. But in government, just as in commerce, prudence demands that contracts be revisited periodically to ensure they still best reflect changing times, needs and circumstances. A government system designed to secure agreement among somewhat reluctant colonies in 1901 will not guarantee justice, stability and prosperity a century later. So whilst the centenary of Federation may well be the occasion for champagne, fireworks and all the rest, we would be wasting a wonderful opportunity if we failed to use this occasion to examine what a best possible system of government for Australia might now be.
A Best Possible system?
A "best possible" system of government for Australia in 2001 and beyond would
carefully reflect (and respect) our unique geography, history and patterns of settlement and commerce
give equal priority to the needs of urban and rural communities alike and be an exemplary model of democratic justice
oversee an appropriate balance between centralised and decentralised features
be efficient and affordable, with an absence of wasteful duplication, so that critical government services would be performed to the highest possible standards within available financial means
host an underlying stability, yet be capable of coping with change in a dynamic world.
Our present system is found wanting in terms of all the above criteria. The funding crises choking our schools, universities, hospitals, aged care facilities, transport links and rural and urban environments each offer prima facie proof that our system is broken and sorely in need of fixing.
The rail gauge fiascos perhaps best illustrate the separateness Federation has perpetuated. As early as 1848 the Legislative Councils of NSW (which then included Victoria) and SA accepted the British standard rail width of 1435 mm. NSW notified the other colonies of this, but in 1852 opted for 1600 mm instead. Victoria and South Australia were informed of this change of heart and altered their plans accordingly. Then, a year later, NSW reverted to the English standard. By this time both Victoria and South Australia had ordered rolling stock with the wider gauge, while Queensland and Tasmania both chose 1067 mm. So the triumph of the Sydney to Melbourne passenger run (the Melbourne Express, later the Southern Aurora) in the 1940s was significantly diminished by the need to change trains at Albury-Wodonga. It was not until 1970, in fact, that a standard gauge line ran right across the continent from NSW to WA. And why did that process take so long? Because successive state and Commonwealth governments could not reach agreement on a standard gauge.
A century after Federation, we still bear the stamp of a handful of colonies all doing their own thing under a bloody-minded "be different for the sake of difference" mentality. Endless further examples illustrate how separate, fragmented approaches have similarly impeded progress in education, healthcare, laws, road rules, safety regulations and a host of other areas. Visitors frequently observe that different countries in Europe cooperate better than the states and territories do here. Our states operate their own trade offices around the world, competing against one another, and against Australia as a whole, for trade. The recent spate of bidding wars between South Australia and Victoria for car manufacturing plants further illustrates the destructive competition and childish lack of cooperation our present system encourages. Criminal offences and their penalties often differ across state and territory boundaries, and whereas criminals face no obstacles, police need extradition orders to pursue criminals across state and territory borders. Such arrangements are great for criminals, but exasperating and sometimes disastrous for police and the law-abiding public. Despite its grandiose ambitions of unity, our century old model of government has actually served to perpetuate the separateness of the federating colonies we now know as the states.
We are over-governed and under-governed, fragmented yet too centralised
With nine sovereign governments and their fifteen parliamentary chambers (those of the Commonwealth and the eight states and territories) serving a population a little over half that of California, Australia is heavily overgoverned at the "big" sovereign government level. At crippling cost, these nine governments independently enact legislation and policy relating to transport, health, education, justice and so on, constantly re-inventing the wheel with unnecessary research, debate and administration. Yet at the same time we are grossly under-governed at the local community level, with our 700 local governments being among the most powerless in the democratic world. The familiar rural person's jibe that NSW stands for "Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong" is backed up by solid research which shows that capital spending in rural areas per head of rural population is about half that enjoyed by city dwellers. The compounded disadvantages faced by rural communities result from systemic neglect and it is time country people got a better deal.
Three articles following will examine what a best possible system might look like, the vast cost benefits sure to accompany a move to an improved system along the lines suggested, and the key reasons why this idea will succeed at referendum time where less beneficial reforms have not.
[We were not forwarded these articles mentioned, and so this paper must stand alone - ed]
* Barrie Smillie is one of several people within the Canberra region who is presently working on the design of an improved system of government for Australia.