Beyond Federation Albury Conference 19-20 July 2003
Chairman, The Foundation for National Renewal
In an exercise such as this, our start point must be to decide what we want from our system of government.
I hope we can agree on the following:
Debate so far has identified two broad options:
In my opinion, the National/Local model is cumbersome, managerially impossible, and will perpetuate many of the ills we currently suffer. Professor Walker, who has given this subject a great deal of study concludes that a unitary system of government is more expensive than a federal system.
In this last presentation for the day, I would like to present to you what I consider to be the best of the possible solutions.
It is a case of leaving the best till last!
This solution to our problem is referred to as a National/Regional Model.
Just to give it a label, I have called it "The Mollison Model"
But I would not like you to think it contains only my ideas.
I have put this model together by gleaning the best ideas from a dozen forums such as this one.
My plan is to give you an overall look at the model first and then to examine each of the criteria in more detail.
The model envisages
Line 1. A National Gov't & Approx 100 Regions each with its own Parliament.
The final number of regions will depend on practicalities that will only become apparent when we actually get around to delineating regions. It might end up being 80 or 120.
Line 2. We envisage a National Parliament consisting of a Senate and a H of Reps
Line 3. The National Parliament would have 100 Senators and 200 Reps
This is an increase on what we have now; but it will not continue to expand
as is currently happening.
Line 4. The National Parliament would be elected by and from Regional
Parliaments
This means the National Parliament; that is, the
parliament that passes all the laws and lays down national policy, is not made
up of any Joe blow who happens to win a seat in some obscure electorate and is
gone again at the next election. The National Parliament, both the Senate
& the H of R, would be made up of experienced and proven
representatives.
Line 5. This National Government would be responsible for all policy.
Line 1 And we would have one set of laws nationwide by virtue of the fact that the National Government would be the sole law making body.
Line 2 The National Government would also be responsible for implementation for Defence, Foreign Affairs, Customs, Immigration, Quarantine, International Trade, etc.
Line 3. We envisage a Constitution that guarantees a set % of revenue
to the Regions.
You will all be aware that a fundamental tenet of our current
Constitution is the allocation of some specific powers to the National
Parliament & all else remains the responsibility of State Gov'ts. It is
obvious, if we are going to abolish State Gov'ts, we will have to change our
Constitution. In fact, we will need a whole new constitution. This
Model envisages that the new constitution will include a provision that
guarantees 80% of total revenue to the Regions.
Furthermore, to
make sure that this % is not eroded over time by politicians, this model
envisages that the % be enshrined in a constitution (that can only be altered by
the People voting at a referendum).
Line 1. The Regions would have Populations of between 150,000 and 250,000
people.
More densely populated areas would have regions of
250,000
Sparsely populated areas would have regions of 150,000.
If it averages out at 200,000, then with a population of 20,000,000, we would have 100 regions
Line 2. The Regions would be based on catchment areas
Line 3. Regional Governments would have, on average, 40 Members of
Parliament
Average because Regions with a small population would
have less MPs than those with a large population.
Line 4. Regional MPs would be elected from single member electorates of 5000 voters.
Line 5. Regional Governments would be responsible for the delivery of all other government services.
Can you start to get a feel for these regions?
They have a population averaging 200,000 people.
Each Region has a single-house parliament of approx 40 MPs and each of these MPs are elected by an electorate of only 5000 voters.
And these Regional Governments would be responsible for the delivery of all
government services except things such as Defence and Foreign Affairs that are
obviously better done at a national level.
Another essential feature of this model is that:-
Line 6. Electors have the power to recall their representative if they prove unsatisfactory or continually fail to vote as expected by their constituents.
This applies to both the National and the Regional Parliaments.
Finish of overview.
Let's have a look at each of these criteria I more detail.
Line 1. This would mean that the Regions are small enough to allow Intimacy of government at the Regional Level. But
Line 2. They would allow for a parliament large enough to handle a wide range of responsibilities.
Line 3. They would also be large enough to be viable, autonomous regions. And also large enough to allow economy of scale in a wide range of activities.
Line 4. 100 Regions would facilitate decentralisation - 100 Capitals instead of Seven
Line 1. Such guaranteed revenue would establish and maintain Regional Autonomy.
Line
2.
This iron-clad guarantee would facilitate planning.
Line 3. It would eliminate political manipulation and pork barrelling.
Line 4. And it would prevent centralisation.
Line 5. It would promote accountability.
Line 6. And it would prevent "buck passing"
Line 1. This would provide logical, natural boundaries.
Line 2. It would give Regions enormous control over the environment of their Region.
Line 3. It would also give Regions control over water supply and effluent.
Line 4. And it would facilitate communications
For example, if we take the Albury/Wodonga area. I envisage a region incorporating Albury and Wodonga (numbering about 70,000 people) and extending up the catchment to the head-waters of the Murray and the tributaries east of here but not far down the catchment. This Region would be bordered by another Region to the East based around Shepparton.
In some cases (particularly in the outback) it could well be impractical to base Regional boundaries on catchment areas. In that case, boundaries would be delineated using
Line 5 Social and/or Economic factors
This range may have to be extended depending on practicalities when we get down to delineating Regions; particularly those in the outback. However, this model is designed to cope with that.
Line 1. This flexibility in size of population would not only facilitate introduction of the new system; but also planning it in the first place.
Line 2. Each Region would be delineated by grouping electorates of 5000 voters
Line 3. In this way, the principle of "One-vote-one-value" is retained.
Line 4. Regions with larger populations could have more problems. This Model gives them more MPs to handle that.
Line 5. Allowing more sparsely populated areas to have Regions with smaller populations means land areas can be of manageable sizes.
Line 6. Populations of this size are large enough to allow a sense of identity.
You will recall I mentioned the Regions would be allocated 80% of gross revenue.
Line 1. This means Regional Parliaments are very powerful. They are not jumped up Local Government bodies.
Line 2. However, because Regions only average 200,000 people, the organisations delivering government services are "Close to the People"
Line 3.
Line 4. And yet, the parliaments will be large enough to handle a wide range of responsibilities.
Line 5. Because we are talking about a relatively small area, with Representatives elected by tiny electorates, these Regional Parliaments would be more accountable than anything we have seen in the past.
Line 6. At the same time, these Parliaments (about 40 MPs) will be small enough to allow effective debate.
These small electorates are an essential element of this Model. (Currently, a Federal H of Reps electorate is about 80,000 voters.)
Line 1. Small enough to allow effective campaigning
Line 2. Eliminates taxpayer funded electoral allowances (This involves $millions. P Hansen didn't win many seats but received over $500,000)
Line 3. Each Member of a Regional parliament will represent only 5,000 voters. This is very intimate representation.
Line 4. True representation of community
Line 5. Undermines power of political parties.
Line 1. "Close to the people" relationship
Line 2. Accountability
Line 3. Delivery structure to suit each Region
Line 4. Close relationship between Politicians and bureaucrats
Line 5. More efficient bureaucracy
What does this mean? It means that the National Parliament is not elected directly by the People. They are elected by Regional Parliaments from among their members. Why do it this way?
Line 1. It means we have only experienced representatives in the National Parliament.
Line 2. Retains the best of representatives in government. There is much support for the view that politicians should be restricted in the number of terms they can serve. This system allows for that policy and at the same time provides an avenue for the best of the bunch to be retained in government.
Line 3. This model envisages National Parliament MPs being required to sit in their Regional Parliament for a couple of days each month. Such a requirement will really facilitate accountability.
Line 4. Effective representation. There would be two Reps in the Lower House and a Senator from this Region.
Line 5. Recall is practical and effective
Line 6. Retains voter value without increasing the number of politicians
Line 7. Last but not least, this system Reduces number of Elections
Line 1. 1 Senator and 2 Representatives per Region
Line 2. Although this is a bigger National Parliament than we have now, there would be less politicians overall.
Line 3. Allows for population increase
Line 4. Small enough to facilitate effective debate
Line 5. Large enough to allow specialised interest groups (Committees) to become intimately acquainted with particular aspects of governance.
We envisage the National Parliament being responsible for establishing national policy on most aspects of governance and being the sole law-making Parliament in the country.
Line 1. This is a logical division of responsibilities.
Line 2. One policy for the whole Nation. The National policy on Education for example might include such things as common starting ages, common basic curricula, common standards of assessment and so on but would leave room for each Region to include curricula topics applicable to their particular Region.
Line 3. Facilitates mobility of population
Line 4. Simplifies business
Line 5. Facilitates employment
Line 6. Reduces bureaucracy
No change to current arrangements
This would apply to both levels of government. I don't envisage it being used all that often, but
Line 1. It would certainly enhance accountability.
Line 2. And symbolically it is important because it retains power in the hands of the People
Line 3. It would provide an avenue to eliminate "rogue" representatives
Line 4. But more importantly, it would encourages consultation with constituents
Line 5. All these things empower the People and I think that an empowered people will take more interest in public policy. Who knows? We might see the end of the Great Australian Apathy.
Ladies & Gentlemen
Retains a type of federal structure whereas the Nat/Local model falls more in the category of a unitary system. Professor Geoffrey de Q Walker, who has given this subject a great deal of study, has concluded that a unitary system gobbles up a greater proportion of GDP than does a federal system.
I believe this system will
Line 1. Eliminate many of the current ills of government and society. No more "buck-passing", "pork-barrelling", remoteness or lack of accountability.
Line 2. It allows an appropriate allocation of responsibilities to both national and sub-national governments.
Line 3. It will reduce the Number of politicians across the country and will reduce the size of the bureaucracy in Canberra
Line 4. It is simple in structure, easily understood and is achievable without major disruption.
Line 5. It will cope with social and technological change and provide huge scope for innovation and diversity.
Line 6. It will save waste in government spending, and
Line 7. Last but not least, it will empower the People and thereby enhance democracy.
Deficiencies of the National/Local Model
100 sub-national gov'ts is manageable. 700 sub-national gov'ts would not be easily managed.
The Mollison Model achieves "close to the People" delivery of services. It might be argued that "Local Governments" could give "even closer to the people" delivery of services.
However, if we have 700 sub-national gov'ts, each of those must necessarily be small. Otherwise we have an enormous increase in the number of politicians. These small councils would not be capable of delivering the wide range of services expected of gov'ts these days.
Therefore, many gov't services would have to be delivered by the National Gov't. This would necessitate an increase in the size of the Canberra bureaucracy. And we all know that huge bureaucracies are inherently inefficient.
This model REDUCES the number of politicians
This model also Reduces the bureaucracy in Canberra
There would of course be bureaucracies in each of the 100 Regions. However, these would absorb all those currently employed by the 700 councils, all those currently employed by State Governments and some of those currently employed in the Canberra bureaucracy. And, being relatively small, they would not suffer the inefficiencies inherent in huge bureaucracies.
Conversely, we have government services being delivered by organisations close to the people. The People can talk direct to the responsible bureaucrat and/or politician and he will have the authority to make a decision.
This allocation of responsibilities to the national and the sub-national governments, avoids duplication and overlap that would be inevitable if we retain 700 local gov'ts.
In the system I have outlined to you in this model, liaison and feedback between the two levels of government is enhanced. It is facilitated by having National Senators and MPs elected from Regional Parliaments and reporting back to those regional parliaments every month.
This arrangement will provide a level of accountability not even dreamed about in most systems of government.