Jim Snow - State : Federal Issues

Australians, like most citizens of the world, are critical of their governments. Many people do not know what governments do and many do not see how they can influence the political process. And when people have a problem, to whom do they go? As a federal MP I had representations from electors about problems like a neighbor's dangerous tree, train schedules, state roads and many other non-federal issues. What is federal? What is state or territory? What is local? The responsibilities are not always clear and are made more confusing when those in one level blames the other for neglect or are accused of taking credit for the successes of the other. Buck-passing and the blame game thrive. The confidence of people in their democracy suffers and a dangerous skepticism about democratic processes creeps in.

This paper examines just three years of records of the government party between 1993 and 1996 to illustrate the way in which the federal system impinged on efficient government between March 1993 and March 1996. It lists, with explanations, all mentions of the States and Territories raised by ministers or back bench parliamentarians in the government party room or Labor caucus during that time, in the briefs on 117 legislation bills and on 57 other occasions.

It seemed evident that uniform, national control was worth considering for many of the issues dealt with, rather than fragmented multi-government control. Other issues deserved uniform, national control with local options for decision-making or for administration or both. Finally, there were three instances where state and territory governments were convenient, though options proposed by reformers in the Beyond Federation network cater for all three.

Overall, both Coalition and Labor state governments were able to substantially delay the implementation of government policy (for example dealing with the Murray Darling Basin water problems 2.20). The delays would have increased the cost of government.

Legislation often resulted from cooperation, coordination and repair, sometimes accompanied by unproductive effort and confusion about objectives. Add to those the time involved and, as a result, urgent measures in areas such as drought relief and rural assistance were held back.

While the states sometimes tried to counter federal power (industrial relations (2.14), compulsory student union fees (2.6), native title (2.1), for example), the Commonwealth was able to out-maneuver them. When they did not agree the states seemed unable to cause the Commonwealth to abandon or remove any important measures. Delay in implementation sourced to the states may have checked Commonwealth power but the legislation would finally pass.

It should be added that the frequency of elections, means that the people themselves are a check on federal policies. Industrial relations and the goods and services tax featured in the 1993 election campaign. Governments are judged by the consequences of their policies, if not the policies themselves, and democratic elections provide more decisive verdict than any protesting state government with their own interests to uphold.

Policy areas where uniform legislation covering the whole nation would increase efficiency, reduce unnecessary costs and enhance rather than inhibit democracy included defamation, therapeutic goods regulation, human rights and banking. Policy areas where uniform legislation was desirable but some decentralization options to areas smaller than those within state boundaries was needed included industrial relations, education, health, funding equity, and transport. Varying degrees of decentralized administration seemed desirable for many policy issues covered in sections 1 and 2, and essential for section 3 (offshore and shipping issues, crime, terrorism, dangerous chemicals).

In the following paragraphs I touch on each of the issues raised by government members where states and territories were mentioned. The object is to consider the effect of the federal system on good government, not to comment on the merits of the many policies. Nor is there any intention to select the best alternatives to the present federal system (whether two tier: national and local, two tier: national and regional or one tier, one way of explaining my own `shared government' proposal where Senators serve in both national and local sectors of government).

To help South Australia reduce its debt burden the Commonwealth agreed to provide the State Bank with $600million. The bank would have to be sold as quickly as possible consistent with a fair market price; the bank being brought into the Commonwealth's tax net, free of losses from July 1, 1994; and the bank being brought under the prudential supervision of the Reserve Bank of Australia no later than the same date. Minor amendments would streamline the transfer of assets to the newly corporatised Bank of South Australia, which was created in preparation for the sale.

This provided the legislative framework for the sale of the Commonwealth Government's 50.39%, $4.5 billion shareholding in the bank The sale would be exempt from State and Territory taxes, duties and charges but the Commonwealth would reimburse those jurisdictions with the amounts.

Chris.Haviland MP queried the justice in proposals for compensation reform bills. The proposals would deal with the high cost of compensation payouts. Assistant Treasurer George Gear said if public interest outweighed compensation then public interest would triumph. If an article in yesterday's Australian were only half right the benefits were so great, we would do it if the States don't.

Consider: DUPLICATION, with more than one level of government involved DIFFERENCES when different states seek different rules, the COST of trying to avoid those differences through inter-government negotiation. There is good reason for UNIFORMITY.

PETER DODD asked MICHAEL LAVARCH a question about a High Court's decision on defamation. We don't want a Gennifer Flowers situation in Australia, he said, referring to one of President Clinton's sex accusers. The Attorney General said the decision had implied the right of freedom of political discussion, that there is no action for defamation unless the remarks are known to be false or reckless, with no attempt to seek comment or where the circumstances of the particular case are shown to warrant action. A case like Flowers may be regarded as private and of no relevance to performance of public duty when a court looks at the matter on its merits. In politics, discussion is seen as essential for democracy and the laws should not prevent that. He was arranging discussions with state Ministers to see if their laws could be brought into line with the High Court. MPs are now far more vulnerable to personal and media attack.

Consider the savings in COST from having UNIFORMITY with only one government involved, the CONFUSION and uncertainty arising from DIFFERENCES involving nine different governments. One person's life savings or another's reputation could depend on which state was the scene of defamation.

Most of the states and territories had agreed to confer testing of samples for unlawful drugs or doping to the Commonwealth agency. It gave tested competitors federal appeal rights and ensured entry of positive tests into the Register of Notifiable Events. The states and territories would need the changes to proceed with their own draft bills.

Consider: COOPERATION and its COST, DELAY in requiring action by nine parliaments, DUPLICATION with two levels of government dealing with the same issue and the absence of reasons for DIFFERENCES warranting UNIFORMITY.

Prime Minister Keating quoted to caucus a Business Review Weekly article saying that there was no vertical fiscal imbalance. `We gave more to the states when they needed more funds but when there is a surplus we can use the surplus in the best way we see fit. That is the nature of our system of government.

`Costello says that if we give the states more responsibility they would be more abstemious in their spending but that is really wrong; there is no vertical fiscal imbalance here and, world wide, economies are held together when tax powers are held together by the national government. In the next three years there will be $2.8 billion to return the states to `85-`86 figures. Costello is about power, not money; if you give them money it's still financial assistance grants.

Consider that state government power over the economy is limited to those powers the Commonwealth deigns to give them. Therefore UNIFORM legislation on major fiscal decisions would reduce BUCK-PASSING and BLAME, CONFUSION, DELAYS in economic action and the consequent higher costs.

The bill proposed a joint system for developing food standards in Australia and New Zealand but adoption in Australia would always depend on the states and territories. The standards would be developed by the Australia New Zealand Food Authority and documented in the A.N.Z. Food Standards Code. The National Foods Standards Council adopted the arrangements.

Consider that New Zealand, one state, could immediately enact this agreement with less COST, less CONFUSION about standards, less COORDINATION, less DELAY, less DIFFERENCES, and less DUPLICATION of responsibility. UNIFORM legislation is logical in Australia.

He pointed out the different definitions of adult in the states. Age 21 may be argued as a legal lower limit in Western Australia. Legislation would need to be reasonable to avoid court challenge.

In conformity with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights article that “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour or reputation”, the bill provided that sexual conduct involving only consenting adults acting in private is not to be subject to any arbitrary interference by any Commonwealth, Territory or State law.

Consider the CHECK ON FEDERAL POWER argument and the difficulty states have in avoiding federal over-riding of such legislation, CONFUSION about DIFFERENCES, state to state, and the lack of arguments against UNIFORMITY and the lack of COOPERATION on international covenants.

Following a High Court decision the Government proposed to eliminate any expectation that Commonwealth, state or territory administrative decisions had to comply with ratified but unimplemented treaties or that an affected person could make submissions on the issue.

Consider: Treaties are logically a national issue. National UNIFORM legislation should apply to the whole nation so that where the Commonwealth legislates there can be no CONFUSION and no question that such exemptions would apply to the whole Commonwealth without the need for further legislation.

State - territory - Commonwealth Ministerial discussions were necessary to make these changes. Business, accounting, educational, professional, scientific films no longer required classification unless visual images warranted MA, R, X or RC classification. The requirement to submit material on computer bulletin boards for classification would only apply if there were a Commonwealth, state or territory provision.

The bill would give a better legislative basis to improve compliance with UN obligations. Sanctions required reliance on a variety of legislation and the bill would mean faster and more flexible reactions to situations like that in Yugoslavia. Minister Bilney deplored state governments entering `the realm of foreign affairs'… `particularly where they involve the stationing overseas of people who spend the taxpayers' money like water'

Consider: UNIFORM control of overseas representation would reverse the DUPLICATION, the CONFUSION, the consequences of poor COORDINATION, the COST of state overseas representation and the fact that the metropolitan based states would be no better at promoting all the nation's tourist and commodity areas than the Commonwealth.

Previous state and territory service by parliamentarians would now only be recognized if there was payment by the scheme for a transfer of that service. Transition arrangements would protect members.

In an aside the Prime Minister said that Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett had asked for half the proceeds of our benefits from privatization. The Grand Prix hasn't solved Victoria's problems, he added.

Consider the state - federal COMPETITION for funds, for example from the huge taxation income from sold enterprises like Commonwealth Bank shares and the purchase of state banks by the Commonwealth Bank.

This would enable the Commonwealth to collect annual charges for maintaining registrations and listings of therapeutic goods, and for maintaining manufacturing licences where effected on behalf of states and territories under the federal arrangements with nine complementary laws to be passed by the commonwealth, state and territory governments.

The proposed legislation would ensure security of title over traditional lands in the Northern Territory and would schedule the areas of Catfish Dreaming, Eva Valley Station following agreement between the Jawoyn Association, the NT government and the mining company Zapopan NL. Kanturrpa-Kanttaji would be scheduled following agreement with NT Power

The Government is proceeding slowly partly because we need to consult with the states because they have jurisdiction over land title and a new body of law will probably be needed for land title for aborigines.

There are further Consultations taking place with aborigines and a paper will be presented to the Council of Australian Governments meeting in June on that matter. There will be some form of proposal put to the states at that time and the Federal Government will seek their cooperation.

She said that some state governments were not listening to Aborigines. The Prime Minister said there was some consultation happening with the states. `We don't want to lose the closer focus we are conceptualizing. Let's get there first - as soon as possible - the question of titles remains open - then deal with the states.'

The reforms were to enhance the roles, effectiveness and accountability of regional councils, to strengthen provisions relating to the declaration of pecuniary interests, to prescribe election processes, wards where necessary and boundaries and to allow the minister to remove chairpersons or deputies for misbehaviour. Minister Robert Tickner acknowledged the support of the states and territories.

The PRIME MINISTER outlined the reasons for trying to include the States in any compact. Central to this was that responsibility for management of existing land title currently resides with the States through the various land departments. Commonwealth has not been a land manager and if it were to go it alone this would necessitate the establishment of a Commonwealth Lands Department.

Minister FRANK WALKER advised that in 1 year Western Australia issued 16,000 titles - multiplying this figure by 6 states and 18 years, would give some indication of the number of titles issued since 1975. Many would be mining but the figure would also include things such as pipelines, parks, dams, pastoral leases, travel resorts.

Reynolds said that a lot of people `don't trust the states but understand the need for an olive branch.' Was there an appeal mechanism? The PM expressed faith in the tribunal and court system.

On Mabo the PM said: Negotiations have been continuing with the states over the past few weeks. But these discussions will not lead to any diminution of the core principles. The states are the land managers and we need to get an agreement now because it will be harder to change those agreements later… If we fail to pass the legislation then the states would have to legislate.

Remains to be seen whether such an arrangement will work and whether the states will accept it. If the states do object it may be necessary to override with the racial Discrimination Act…

It may be possible to give rights under specials measures of the Racial Discrimination Act; we may be able to validate titles. In the 1970's the NSW Lands Minister excised 50 acres and we can now validate titles. The Aborigines are saying “validate and give us some right to negotiation”. Would the States accept this? Only after legal advice touching the Racial Discrimination Act. …

The Government will propose a regime that includes both cooperating and non-cooperating states. It is important to remember that the states are the land managers. If the approach fails there can be challenges in the High Court.

PAUL KEATING outlined in the presence of the media the historic Mabo agreement that resulted from the Cabinet decision last night. He thanked and paid tribute to all involved especially his ministerial colleagues on the Cabinet committee, the bureaucracy, the Prime Minister and Cabinet team under Sandy Holloway and those states who could see the benefits to be gained from a co-operative approach.

PAUL KEATING said that an original claim can be pursued either through the state or federal mechanisms but they must stay within the one system once they have committed themselves to it.

The amendment followed an agreement between the NT government, Gambarora Industries Pty Ltd and the Central Land Council representing the Aboriginal claimants in a Wampana claim of unalienated Crown Land. The 1976 Act had already allowed the granting of 57 separate parcels of land to Aboriginal Land Trusts and this change effected the grant of `an estate in fee simple in the land which was the subject of the Land Claim'.

Margaret Reynolds said there was increased racism with claims that there may be a claim on the Great Barrier Reef. All this damaged our credibility and we need a strategy to deal with it.

The PM said Queensland had decent legislation and will be singing the same tune. There is a common thread in the argument on native title. The Aborigines are having a debate then we'll all act. He will move more on these things. (Premier) Court of WA is roaring his line over in Perth with cameras out and doors shut. What a model of cooperation. Dividing people off is fallacious.

PAUL KEATING said that the problems with cross vesting procedures could always go to the states or Federal Court. The question is whether judges in state courts can make valid judgments. If the state is wrong the matter can go to the High Court of Australia.

The awarding of Native Title is at issue. There will always be a final right of appeal to the High Court. If there is poor treatment by the state court this will lead to them being declared a "non cooperating state."

Aborigines would not trust the federal minister to over-rule states because the government could change. You can't give carte blanche… There needs to be ongoing discussion with the committee.

CLYDE HOLDING asked whether Jeff Kennett was speaking on his own behalf or for all states. What was Richard Court's position? PAUL KEATING said that Kennett was speaking for all states except Western Australia. Court was in a difficult position and would be under increasing pressure from the other conservatives.

58 parcels of traditional land had been passed to Aboriginal Land Trusts but an agreement between the Territory Government, the Hodgson Downs Land Claim and the Northern Land Council resulting in a need for the scheduling of new parcel of land.

This responds to an agreement between claimants to the Western Desert (South) Repeat Land Claim and the Central Land Council. The Northern Territory Government requested that the Commonwealth add the parcel of land to the Schedule awarding titles to parcels of land to specified trusts.

The Commonwealth and the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community negotiated to implement recommendation 315 of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. As a result this would enable title to the Jervis Bay National Park and the Jervis Bay Botanic Gardens to be granted to the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council. The grant would be subject to the Minister's satisfaction and to an agreement to lease the land to the Director of National Parks and Wildlife.

The Commonwealth Grants Commission Act would be extended to report on funding for works and services in Jervis Bay and to enable inquiries into the financial relationships between the Commonwealth and Norfolk Island.

This legislation (see Crime 3.2), resulted from an attempt by Commonwealth, Territories and States to end reliance by the Commonwealth on their varied forensic procedure provisions, provisions uncertain in scope and generally with few safeguards.

Consider the Constitutional power the Commonwealth has over Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues entitling it to override the States. The government preferred to negotiate the issues, especially those relating to land because of the states' role in land management. The Commonwealth took a soft approach using COOPERATION and COORDINATION. UNIFORM nation-wide legislation providing local options of the type detailed above involving the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory (Jervis Bay) and Victoria, would not require State involvement.

Prime Minister: The states are reluctant to adopt Hilmer (the National Competition Policy Review conducted by Professor Fred Hilmer). They were offered a per-capita guarantee worth the equivalent of $1 billion and a population based guarantee. Their officials agreed and Hilmer would give their authorities real growth through recession yet in Darwin they wanted 50% of Commonwealth tax receipts to play ball. In the afternoon Premiers Goss (Queensland) and Fahey (NSW) said we need to chalk up some progress and the ACT and NT supported us. Western Australia gave qualified support. Labor wants competitive changes affecting GBE's (Government Business Enterprises) and the conservatives are fighting them.

Graeme Campbell said the obsession about inflation made Hilmer hard to address. The PM said electricity prices in NSW had dropped 23% and we were likely to see more price drops and more business activity, a greater capacity for new investment, following the changes.

MOTION MOVED: BOB BROWN, SECONDED: PETER KNOTT Caucus expresses its deep concern about the proposal by the NRMA motorist organization in NSW to seek the public listing and float of that body.

MARY EASSON spoke in opposition: 85% of NRMA members voted in favour of the public listing, which would make it easier for the NRMA to expand into Queensland and Victoria. Roadwork would not be neglected. Caucus should leave the matter to members of the NRMA and the courts.

Barry Cunningham said the COAG (Council of Australian Governments) meeting should cover competition policy, a major issue in Victoria. The PM said he was alert to the choice of state owned grids or power owners and to problems involved.

This uniform protection of business and consumer rights followed discussions with the states, territories and the public and after 130 public submissions to the National Competition Policy Review conducted by Professor Fred Hilmer.

Jurisdiction over competition and consumer matters would be given to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, ACCC, merging the Trade Practices Commission and the Prices Surveillance Authority.

A mechanism would be provided for state and territory application of competition provisions of the Trade Practices Act to business activity not previously covered. All those governments were expected to legislate relevant powers to the ACCC and the Federal Court.

Access to essential facilities of national significance, including electricity grids and gas pipelines, would be provided to buyers following application and `declaration' of the service by a new National Competition Council. Here we see a new opportunity for users to buy power and fuel from interstate providers, previously monopolised in each state, and there is no requirement for privatisation.

The National Competition Council would have advisory and research functions and would make pricing and access recommendations. Prices surveillance, price inquiries and price monitoring would be the duty of the ACCC and could even be applied to state and territory businesses.

The Australian CompetitionTribunal would take over the duties of the replaced Trade Practices Tribunal and hear appeals from authorisation decisions of the ACCC and, a new responsibility, appeals from decisions in access matters.

The amendments on the bill, introduced at the day meeting of 28^th March 1995, recognize state and territory access regimes; clarify the operation of licenses; recognize Territories' cooperation; and clarifies provisions relating to the exclusion of states' and territories' cabinet material from compulsory information powers, and `non-business' activities excluded from coverage.

The long and involved procedure in responding to Hilmer's National Competition Policy Review caused DELAYED action on a major and, to the government, vital policy change, not because the states were opposed to more competition but because there were so many DIFFERENT approaches from the nine governments. The COST of implementing the policies, and the COST of coordination and discussion between governments would have been overcome by one government implementing a UNIFORM policy at a national level. Carefully considered DECENTRALIZATION of some options to local areas could have encouraged local incentive and therefore initiative in promotion and marketing of their resources - commodity, tourist and human. Metropolitan Australia could benefit from the economic, cooperative, planning and environmental approach of modern city states which reach out to the regions around them, as partners, not leeches.

State boundaries seemed to be an unfair inhibition on expansion of a business whereas local options, such as referenda, under national UNIFORM guidelines would be a fairer way of keeping unwanted business away - eg. a supermarket or a sex shop or a knackery.

Aiming to simplify the Corporations Law, these measures would improve the operation of the law and facilitate the operation of the Australian Securities Commission and the Corporations and Securities Panel. The provisions included making the Law compatible with state law.

Consider the COSTLY COOPERATION and COORDINATION necessary to cope with the need for nine sets of laws that should obviously be UNIFORM. The unnecessary CONFUSION for business could be replaced by DECENTRALISATION of options to encourage the development of local initiatives, ideas and marketing.

Definitions would be changed for agriculture industries, to cover transport, conservation measures, and firebreaks and water access, for example; and for mining, to cover transport, power, water, for example.

Consider that even entirely Commonwealth responsibilities like customs and excise have to cope with middle level references. UNIFORM coverage of what are now state issues would reduce COST and the need for COORDINATION.

Responding to critical drought conditions in Queensland and New South Wales this bill provided a safety net to meet cash flow needs of farmers and their families. Further rural adjustment scheme measures, financial counseling, and cash for basic necessities and services would be provided. Jobsearch allowance including partner allowance and family payments would be payable without farm assets being included in the assessments.

Consider: The BUCK-PASSING and BLAME that occurs with two levels of government being involved, the DELAYS in assisting people in desperate situations, the CONFUSION about responsibility, especially among applicants, the COST of cooperation and COORDINATION, the DIFFERENCES in assessment standards, the DUPLICATION of responsibility at two levels of government and the REPAIR measures required when intentions are not achieved by government. UNIFORM Commonwealth responsibility with decentralized assessment using Commonwealth guidelines would reduce all those impediments and increase fairness.

The Authority, set up in 1992 by the heads of all the Australian federal and state and territory governments, would assume from the Commonwealth Department support for training activities and services which were national in scope and purpose. Examples included measures to support industry through competency based training, planning and provision of vocational education and training, and to improve access and equity in training.

The Minister was given power to direct the Australian National Training Authority not to pay some or part of funds for vocational education and training to states and territories where they do not comply with an agreed statement.

The New Schools Policy of the government held back the growth of low-fee private schools some years before, when Susan Ryan, as Education Minister, decided that some schools were unworthy of federal funds. Some used overseas material, particularly USA fundamentalist Christian material, and barely recognized the Australian residency of their pupils. The states were unconcerned about this and registered such schools. They can, said Ryan, and we will not be paying them.

* Comment: In 1996 the new Howard government abolished the New Schools Policy and in 2004 a Brethren School in Adelaide was reported to be receiving $5666 per year per student while banning computers, thus breaching national curriculum requirements, and to be `protecting' the students from universities, television and radio. *

Discussion on an employment green paper: Rosemary Crowley stressed the values of employment in the service areas of education, health and child care, the latter employing over 60,000 people and bound to grow significantly. She also said that a regional plan does not just cover regional investment….

Rod Sawford: The CES dilemma is that it is process oriented rather than service delivery but we created that; for the first 30 years it met the needs of employers. We will never solve the problems until we address literacy. Up to 20 to 25% are leaving schools with inadequate literacy and we are neglecting the young children.

Sawford reported that 90% of primary teachers are women, the teachers have no voice and the states are responsible. We have no attitude on prevention, we are all on fixing and we are not fixing the problem.

Responding to other comments he acknowledged that skills formation requires equipping the workforce for changing opportunities, and not only youth. (Before my regular post-caucus media briefing I was asked not to include his comment that the Local Capital Works Program would be better with a regional response). The regions are to be encouraged to come forward with council coordination. It's not the money but the way it's spent.

It is true that the new opportunities are exciting young people. Would the pent up demand for TAFE places be helped by the White Paper? The PM agreed that TAFE students are more likely to get work and this was featured in our South Australian campaign.

He supported making TAFE a Commonwealth funded national system, a fully developed national system. The status of TAFE will rise as the quality of its education rises. Industry needs to be involved in the vocational area so that certificates are a smart assessment of courses.

Following agreement between heads of state, territory and federal governments triennial funding was provided to ANTA, the Australian National Training Authority to monitor and support the Australian traineeship system and for career start traineeships, assisting public and private providers.

Victoria purported to abolish compulsory student unionism and there was a danger that student services and amenities would be limited, especially newspapers, student advocacy and representation. Victoria prohibited universities from accepting benefits for students. Showing how the Commonwealth can often override state laws when it wishes, this bill proposed that student organizations could be funded to help students and the funds would be recovered from General Revenue Assistance to the States. Pressure on the University of Tasmania by its government also warranted the measure. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was cited by the Commonwealth as legal backing for federal involvement.

MOTION MOVED: PETER KNOTT, SECONDED: ROD SAWFORD The Federal Parliamentary Labor Party requires COAG should not deregulate school teaching as recommended by VEETAC and support a nationally consistent occupational registration of the teaching service.

Where states prevent student organizations from receiving financial help from their institutions the bill made provision for grants to those organizations. The bill would override a Western Australian bill's attempt to stop student bodies from accepting Commonwealth funding. Like Victoria, WA wanted to stop what it called compulsory student unionism.

There would be a variation in recurrent and capital grants and detailed allocations under the English as a Second Language, Special Education, Country Areas, Students at Risk, Disadvantaged Schools and Transitional Support Programs.

Two new councils would be created by disallowable instrument, the Australian Language and Literacy Council and the Australian International Education Foundation Council. A Commonwealth/states Consultative Committee would be redundant and therefore abolished and the Minister, rather than the Governor General, would now appoint board and council board members, other than the Chairperson and Deputy.

JOHN LANGMORE raised the issue of funding for the states. He was concerned about general-purpose grants. For example we reduced TAFE funds and, with their increased outlays, 150,000 students couldn't get positions.

Consider that if the Commonwealth wants to get its way the process may be cumbersome but in the end is successful, somewhat diminishing the CHECKS AND BALANCES argument for retaining states. Consider that FAIRNESS to all students involves removal of some of the DIFFERENCES through UNIFORM guidelines. DECENTRALIZATION of some decisions on curricula allowed the teaching of the philosophy of the education institution, local history and local industry and employment studies - and this could be achieved under firm national guidelines.

The PM pointed to success with ethane from the Cooper Basin and headway being made with the Premiers on COAG on the electricity grid. He hoped for a tariff price fall and pointed out that Queensland was putting in another power station when `they can get supply from NSW'.

BARRY CUNNINGHAM asked a question about delays in forming the National Grid. In the electricity industry, Cunningham explained, 7,300 workers had been lost, there were 10,000 employed, $187 million lost from the economy and the towns of Moe, Churchill, Morwell and Traralgon all hurt with people selling their houses for $24,000 to $50,000. They will be destroyed if the competitive policy is not made to help them. The PM said that while former NSW Premier Greiner had been a reformer Premier Fahey's government was the most useless outfit in the Commonwealth and was sitting on the electricity changes until the next election. NSW needs to develop a competitive structure. Victoria could sell to NSW. Queensland's SECQ was even doing work in South East Asia. The structural changes have been big and he would happily talk to Victorian Premier Kennett about structural adjustment assistance in Victoria.

Specific provisions are included for the transfer of pipeline easements to ICI in support of the Moomba to Botany (Sydney) ethane pipeline. As well, it is made clear that State Licensing Laws are to apply to private sector pipelines when these run in easements in which the Commonwealth has an interest. New easements required for the pipeline are to be owned by the Pipeline Authority.

Consider the long period of attempted COOPERATION and COORDINATION, with the DELAYS in setting up a national electricity grid causing higher COSTS. The DIFFERENT approaches of the states also hurt consumers. South Australia privatized their electric power and consumers suffered higher prices, many blaming the sharing of electric power when the problem may have been due to a lack of UNIFORM approach with one state exploiting another. The Commonwealth should oversee distribution, aiming for FAIRNESS AND EQUITY. REPAIR work to rectify gas pipeline regulation at two levels of government also COSTS money and warrants UNIFORM licensing.

The ministerial Council was established by this bill following a federal-state-territory-local government Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment in 1992 and the subsequent ministerial council called the National Environment Protection Authority, which this council replaces. The tiresome and wasteful process, made necessary by the federal system we have, would mean that each jurisdiction would have to legislate before implementation occurs. The council or NEPC would make NEPM's or national environment protection measures. Not content with that small number of initializations the nine governments endorsed a NEPCSC or NEPC Service Corporation, a NEPC Standing Committee of Officials, or NEPCCO, for advice, to the NEPC, not the NEPCSC.

The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills wanted automatic repeal of the Act if it had not been proclaimed within 12 months of Royal Assent. If complementary legislation had not been passed by all States and Territories within 12 months its intention would have been lost, hence this amendment.

Treasurer Ralph Willis, presenting the budget to the government caucus, announced an increase of $217 over 4 years for environmental protection particularly coastal and native forest environments following agreement with the states.

Consider the advantage of UNIFORM national legislation and guidelines with appropriate local rather than state options. Local groups may foster innovative environment improvement projects. DELAYS in perhaps urgent measures would be lessened.

Farmers in the Australian Capital Territory would come under Territory jurisdiction for exotic disease eradication and the ACT would join the Commonwealth/states cost sharing agreement for those activities.

*The potential disasters from exotic diseases and the involvement of the feral animal population could devastate rural communities and even break their economies if foot and mouth and other diseases were to reach such animals as the millions of wild pigs in the Australian bush. Penny Lockwood in my office and I organised two search conferences on feral animal control involving state, territory and national scientists and rangers, farmers, rangers, academics, fencing experts, dingo experts, animal lovers and others. This, combined with smart work previously done by the federal Primary Industries Department led to the first national approach and funds for feral animal control with each state coming up with its need - goats, rabbits, pigs, dogs (don't mention the word dingo). None of the pests recognized state boundaries, but funding and politics did.

Consider the danger of not having a UNIFORM approach on feral animal and exotic disease control. Feral animals and the diseases they carry do not stop at state boundaries and the states are not usually the appropriate level to deal with the challenge. DECENTRALIZATION of some responsibility and action to appropriate local control based on flexible boundaries, according to the problem, would be more effective and less COSTLY. Local projects would take into account the local need and terrain - for example, control of the millions of feral pigs may include shooting in heavily forested areas and trapping in open scrub and on farmland.

After tedious, but given the federal system, the necessary tussles and conferencing, New South Wales and Victoria were landed with an unfair share of Medicare guarantee payments. It was finally agreed that the other states and territories and the Commonwealth would share the payments to the two states.

The Commonwealth would fund higher education in Western Australia to compensate education institutions should their state government prevent them from collecting student union fees used for counseling, sports, health and career services.

The PM had `given the Premiers a real terms per capita guarantee and the debate will be about the COAG agenda. We have a comfortably low inflation, high producing economy because of the competition between importing sectors. External orientation was taking place between exporters with telecommunication services rising. The message to the states is: you do the same as we've done. Revenue foregone by the Commonwealth, in ports, wharves and airlines, will reach $6 billion by 1996-7. The states can do it through electricity and water, and through monopoly rents by lazy QANGOS. Pacific Power is a tyranny on NSW. That does not mean we endorse the modality of Kennett's proposals. Hilmer recommended that we retain objectives like the accord provisions and the Trade Practices provisions. The public benefit is not exclusively economic efficiency. We opposed unreasonable amendments to competition policy. So if what Kennett has done is too tough and wrongly directed, criticize him. Our problem is that the states need to get competitive. We all have to be in it because other countries don't compensate us for lowering tariffs.

NEIL O'KEEFE spoke about some of the repercussions arising from the untying of grants to the states. The states have accused the Commonwealth of withdrawing funds to a particular area when funding is actually being provided in an untied way.

The Financial Agreement Between the Commonwealth, states and territories was approved by this bill in conjunction with the National Debt Sinking fund Repeal Bill 1994. The Loan Council was continued and the Australian Capital Territory would be brought into the council. Restrictions on the States borrowing in their own names and the requirement for Commonwealth approval were removed and debt redemption arrangements established to replace the Sinking Fund arrangements (see the following bill).

The loan council arrangements would probably work better if the centralist governments based in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane were replaced by smaller governments with more logical boundaries to encourage more localized decisions, better local motivation and better local initiative, better business and infrastructure prospects and more environmentally sound development.

If passed the Act would be repealed and the National Debt Commission abolished. Commonwealth security debt on allocation to the states and Northern Territory would operate under a proposed Debt Retirement Reserve Trust Account.

NEIL O'KEEFE reminded Caucus that about three months ago he had raised the issue of states "dudding" the Commonwealth and not acknowledging the Commonwealth contribution to projects. At the time he had requested examples of this from Caucus members so that the PRIME MINISTER could take the issue up with the Premiers. To date he had received five replies. Further examples are needed by close of business this week.

There was a question to the PRIME MINISTER from JIM McKIERNAN on the possibility of a visit to Western Australia. The PM said he would be going to WA. After his bout of `flu' other days are being discussed. The WA Premier, Richard Court, says nothing at the Premiers' conference; he drops back in discussion and does not argue the case for WA at COAG then he is noisy on the way out. The State Opposition needs to get its act together, let's hope sooner rather than later.

WARREN SNOWDON asked Deputy PM BRIAN HOWE a question about COAG and how Caucus would be consulted on the formulation of the Commonwealth's position, particularly in regard to direct funding and tied grants to the states.

Brian Howe understood the sensitivities of caucus when recognition was not given to the Commonwealth, when the states were placing themselves in a favourable light. The current funding arrangements were achieving some good results and the Commonwealth was just as interested in those results as the states. We should think through, with caucus, how we deal with this. COAG would meet in August and Cabinet would be in a stronger position if it knows what the caucus views are.

Premier Conference agreements in April 1995 led to this proposal to provide the states and territories with $15.7 billion in 1995- 6 as general purpose grants and to increase arterial roads grants in line with consumer price index and population changes as happened with Financial Assistance Grants (aptly called FAGS; like their namesakes in the English private schools they serve undeserving masters, in this case, centralist states).

Where any Commonwealth grant under any Commonwealth program is accepted by a state or local government and where the Commonwealth contribution exceeds 50% of the total cost, then it should be a condition of the acceptance of the grant that the project is launched and opened by the relevant Commonwealth Minister or his or her nominee in conjunction with the state or local Government representative and non-government organizations. CARRIED

ANDREW THEOPHANOUS said that we ought to be contrasting the government with conservative state governments and it needs to done more systematically than it is being done at the moment. We need to get data together.

KIM BEAZLEY agreed. CARMEN LAWRENCE and ROSS FREE are examples of ministers who are doing that. We certainly do need to compare the Liberal policy statements with what is actually happening in the states and territories.

Consider the effect of DECENTRALIZATION. Although negotiation and debate may precede allocation of taxpayer funds to local areas under any system, the allocation may be fairer if based on local need and the degree of local fund-raising in the form of rates and taxes. A rural community in New South Wales or Victoria may be just as disadvantaged as one in Tasmania yet the allocation to the less populous Tasmania may be fairer to it's rural community than one in Western NSW where needs may be submerged to those of Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong. To ignore communities in need would be unfair and contrary to logical demographic policies; hence the distribution of funds to areas of need.

Federal members and senators felt that the states, like cuckoos, grabbed credit for federally funded initiatives. BUCK-PASSING thrives in the federal system. Without the middle level of government meetings of COAG, the Council of Australian Governments, could be replaced by a less COSTLY and more efficient approach. Systems proposed by organizations in the Beyond Federation network outline a range of approaches. Network members agree that the present state boundaries are totally unsuitable in allocating funds on the basis of need.

MOTION MOVED: SHAYNE MURPHY, SECONDED: DICK ADAMS "That the PRIME MINISTER'S Report be adopted and further that Caucus endorses the Prime Minister's statements of December 22nd 1994 and Friday, 27 January 1995, and proposes that a working group of representatives of relevant Caucus committees be established and resourced to ensure the speedy implementation of the National Forest Policy Statement, including recommendations in relation to the facilitation of Regional Forest Agreements in all states and the development of a forest industry plan for the long term future of the forest industry."

Andrew Theophanous, supporting, said the caucus committee must examine the relevant information from the resources and environment ministers and apply all means to ensure that all 509 coupes were examined properly and protected if needed. He wanted a more plantation based, value added industry and substantial progress in achieving the National Forest Policy Statement and a National Reserve system.

Lindsay Tanner, opposing, said John Faulkner has done his job in effectively advancing government policy. Animal habitats had been destroyed and the effect of the industry on water supply was acute. The Victorian Government was subsidizing the industry with $50 million. Market forces will phase out woodchips and the industry was dragging investment away from other areas. Are we going to let these issues run us?, he asked.

John Faulkner supported the motion, saying the Prime Minister's statement was a good balance of the issues and the process of the Environment Department had been transparent and open, consultative, rigorous and scientific. We had lacked the cooperation of the states from day one. NSW and Tasmania told us to get stuffed and only in the last few weeks had Tasmania agreed to sign up with the National Forest Policy Statement. Victoria and Western Australia were waiting on advice; the National Association of Forest Industries and the union, the CFMEU, gave nothing. He had given more time to the unions than other environment ministers.

SHAYNE MURPHY then closed the debate. The industry wants a long-term future, he argued. We have not had proper involvement with the states and we have not allowed the owners to take responsibility. Make it clear that further assessment of the 509 areas is to take place and give people security. CARRIED.

The PM criticized the new Opposition leader, John Howard saying Howard had recommended that the states be left to decide the future of forests and wilderness areas… and that if John Howard had been in charge in 1995 the Daintree would be logged, the Franklin would be dammed

MARJORIE HENZELL, on green issues arising from the Canberra by-election, said the 13% green vote was significant and we were not coming out and dealing with the perceptions. Woodchipping was a symptom of what is seen as the problem. The PM replied that we were using export controls on forests we don't manage; we relied on information from the states and are not the primary managers. The 20% reduction in woodchipping per year was being overlooked and interest was now being shown in diverting material for secondary processing.

The MINISTER said that negotiations were still continuing with the Western Australian government. They had been the last to provide the information and this contributed to the delay. There would be a briefing this week.

Consider: The DELAY in achieving state endorsement of Regional Forest Agreements would be far, far less if the agreements were pursued with each of the regions because the imperative would have been greater for the regions; their economies depended on it. Almost every criticism of the federal system could have applied to the timber negotiations: DELAY, CONFUSION, BUCK-PASSING, BLAME, COMPETITION between governments, poor COOPERATION and COORDINATION, the COST of the delays and a lack of FAIRNESS for businesses, workers and taxpayers, insufficient DECENTRALISATION to provide local options Add to that the extraordinary spectacle of the Commonwealth Cabinet going through hundreds of different forest coupes in detail. If they trusted the states, this should have been left to them, or, under national direction may have been recommended from the correct level of one forestry service.

Discussion on the employment green paper: Rosemary Crowley stressed the values of employment in the service areas of education, health and child care, the latter employing over 60,000 people and bound to grow significantly. She also said that a regional plan does not just cover regional investment….

It may be true that public investment has run off in the past 10 years, replied the PM. We were short of savings and short of income but if we weren't in there when commodities let us down our people would have been massacred. Unlike New Zealand our adjustments were sympathetic; part of this was taking down the public sector. Our involvement ought to be in human services where there is no private funding, health for example. There were cutbacks to the states because they had to share in the national effort. As a result they were doing better, privatizing in other (infrastructure) areas when it was called for.

Prime Minister Keating said `We gave more to the states when they needed more funds but when there is a surplus we can use the surplus in the best way we see fit. That is the nature of our system of government. Otherwise the states would do what they did once and shift funding from health because we are giving to health.

The Australian Childhood Immunization Register would be added to the functions of the Health Insurance Commission to strengthen prevention of diseases such as measles, whooping cough and rubella. The Commonwealth would pay $3 for each entry on the Register, and ask the states to provide $3.

Consider the DUPLICATION, EVEN TRIPLICATION with three levels of government involved in health and welfare including childcare and the CONFUSION that arises. The Commonwealth controls the bulk of funds for all governments and administers Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefits; childcare; immunization; community services, and social security. The states control hospitals, registrations of practitioners, public health, drugs, childcare, community services, immunization, welfare and local government. Local government is involved with childcare, community services, welfare, public health and immunization.

Consider the COST savings from a reduction in the number of governments involved in health and welfare, the reduced CONFUSION amongst health consumers who want problems followed up, the reduced BUCK-PASSING and BLAME, the reduced COMPETITION for credit by state and federal governments, the reduced need for COOPERATION and COORDINATION, the reduced DELAY in action, the reduced REPAIRS to the inevitable problems. UNIFORM legislation and guidelines and appropriate DECENTRALIZATION of options and administration to a local level would be less expensive, less cumbersome and FAIRER.

urges a national target to bring the amenity and design standards of public housing estates in Australia to comparable private sector standards through the life of the next two Commonwealth - State Housing Agreements.

The understandable frustrations of parliamentarians like Latham at DELAYS in implementing progressive public housing policies may have been lessened were it not for the unnecessarily DUPLICATED responsibilities of state and federal governments. Local government has had a minor but often very constructive role. REPAIR jobs should not be necessary when states do not meet their responsibilities. UNIFORM control and guidelines, with DECENTRALISED options and administration in local areas, would enable concerted reform for people who could not afford private sector housing.

The conservative states are trying to undermine these rights so we are protecting against them and predatory employers…. Flexibility has been built around protection of the award structure. Taken together with measures taken before last Christmas we have a good package of labour measures. The unions backed us in the last election and we have kept our word. The ACTU showed what leadership is all about.

Cope with complementary IR arrangements between federal and state governments, covering common use of the Australian Share Registry, ensuring that the 1988 IR Act does not apply to unions that do not wish to take advantage of it and placing a time limit on objections to variations of common rule awards

For disputes, corporations power would be used to avoid the requirement for an interstate dispute and intrusion into state jurisdictions would be avoided by legislating to only apply the measure to federal awards

Minister Brereton said there were about 140 amendments to the recently introduced bill involving changes relating to the External Affairs power, 80 minor and technical amendments, 25 changes because of the agreement with the ACTU and 30 following consultation with employers, Queensland and other states.

New South Wales and the Commonwealth had agreed that the industrial relations power of the Coal Industry Tribunal would be transferred to Commonwealth and State industrial tribunals. This bill does the Commonwealth bit.

This controversial back down from some of the unfair dismissal provisions was to prevent a deluge, particularly of middle and higher-ranking executives, from `forum shopping' from state tribunals to the new federal IR court. A cap was set at an annual $60,000 salary, above which claims could not be transferred to the IR court because the original intention to help people not covered brought unintended consequences.

That unfair dismissal modification was unacceptable to some, hence the adjournment and resubmission at a special meeting of caucus, when the $60,000 cap was reduced to $30,000. (In the parliament, IR spokesman for the opposition, John Howard scoffed at the back down but supported the amendments and Phil. Cleary, Independent MP for Wills, was recorded in hansard as the only opposition to these changes).

The Minister proposed agreement with suggested amendments covering disputes in the coal mining industry where the states of NSW and Queensland needed to regard the Commonwealth law as a law of the state and the bill provided for membership of state tribunal members on the full bench of the Industrial Relations Commission.

Further unfair dismissal changes followed consultations with employers, and unions. Applications would now go straight to the Industrial Relations Commission rather than via the IR court of Australia. Consent arbitration would be possible. When state action could be taken was clarified.

The PM said that Howard, who couldn't lie straight in bed, is cynical. He is endorsing the Western Australian industrial relations agenda. He did so at the Liberal conference. They also proposed at that conference a minimum wage of $310 per week.

The PM said `We have just had our sixteenth successive quarter of economic growth, and will be meeting with the ACTU and will be emphasizing to them the fact that the Opposition would knock out the wages system and push Australia back to the sort of standards being set in Western Australia'.

PM Keating said: The industrial relations debate is a debate about the sort of society we want to be. Are relations between employers and employees important? Yes, as important as the efficiency, management and other issues that are important in running a business. Western Australia and Kennett in Victoria give the Government the opportunity to show just what the Liberals would do.

Consider the COST of DUPLICATION of responsibility for industrial relations at two government levels and the COST to businesses with interstate interests. UNIFORM national laws with flexibility to DECENTRALIZE arrangements to the workplace with a safety net would make one government responsible for the guidelines and answerable to the electorate. There would be less DIFFERENCES and CONFUSION for businesses and investors and our mobile workforce.

The lack of uniform transport regulations and charges from state to state had resulted in some predictable and fancy wheelwork by transport operators, including registration in states with cheaper fees. NSW operators were registering in South Australia, for example. . The bill allowed the determination of registration and permit charges in the Capital Territory, as a beginning to a series of nationwide changes in charges and, therefore, micro-economic reform in the transport industry. It continued the justifiable and slow whittling away of nonsensical state and territory differences which had begun to form soon after federation.

The heads of all nine governments agreed to a national scheme of road transport regulation, to remove contradictions and differences in charges. Each of the states and the Northern Territory would have to submit their own legislation and technical standards would be progressively incorporated later. The Capital And Jervis Bay Territories were covered by this legislation. Parliamentary Secretary Neil O'Keefe called on the state governments to demonstrate their commitment to the reform process for the sake of the road transport industry.

Before delivering a 1994 national highway act the government decided to provide $2.46 billion for highway works through amending the Australian Land Transport Development Act 1988 via this bill. An attempt was made to clearly define the funding responsibility of state, territory, local and federal governments and the Commonwealth would only fund national highways from 1 January 1994.

The usual cumbersome negotiations required to deal with issues that should be uniform across the nation resulted in a Commonwealth, state, territory agreement to enact uniform laws in each jurisdiction covering the transport of dangerous goods. Each would have to apply regulations and changes automatically, when agreed to but would be able to make suitable local variations. The bill was developed by the National Road Transport Commission, put to the Ministerial Council for Road Transport and approved. As with many issues it would have been easier to hand transport powers to the Commonwealth which could easily have allowed local variations.

1985 legislation had provided a long overdue Federal Interstate Registration Scheme for vehicles engaged in interstate trade and commerce. These changes detailed arrangements for the charges to provide funds for distribution to the states and territories for the maintenance and upkeep of roads used by the vehicles. The states-Commonwealth agreement required the usual passing of legislation in each jurisdiction other than the A.C.T. for which the Commonwealth was responsible.

In order to lift the economic burden on the true believers of western and southwestern Sydney who use these motorways, and to preserve the credibility of Labor Governments, Caucus urges the NSW Government to abolish these tolls without further delay.

Unlike New Zealand, said the Prime Minister, our adjustments were sympathetic; part of this was taking down the public sector. The government sector is smaller than it used to be but the private sector is doing part of the job, for example rail and from the Port of Brisbane to Acacia Ridge, meeting the southern line from Brisbane, straightening curves and improving the Brisbane Sydney Melbourne Adelaide routes.

Our involvement ought to be in human services where there is no private funding, health for example. There were cutbacks to the states because they had to share in the national effort. As a result they were doing better, privatizing when it was called for.

Consider the destructive force of the COMPETITIVE relationship between governments on roads: states not agreeing on priorities to and from borders, the Commonwealth limiting its involvement to national highways then spending on state arterials and local roads to score votes. The states and local governments inevitably call for more spending when the one-off programs stop. Electors are CONFUSED about who is responsible for what, DELAY occurs because of different priorities and DUPLICATION of effort occurs. UNIFORM national responsibility with DECENTRALIZED power based on more local decision - making should rapidly reduce COSTS and increase FAIR distribution of infrastructure. There was a lot of COOPERATION evident, too, but even that was arduous and COSTLY.

Debates about local, arterial and national highway priorities for land transport are needed in a democracy but a reduction in the number of participants in the blame game may clarify responsibilities, produce quicker action and reduce COSTS.

The restriction of motor vehicle registration and driver licensing to the states and territories is costly and time consuming for the interstate road transport industry, the mobile workforce and the mobile retired. UNIFORM legislation on registration and licensing would substantially reduce COSTS for business, administration and road users

The bill would be the basis of local government assistance through the states and territories and would replace current principles that were formerly negotiated bilaterally. Local road funding would become untied, and the financial capacity of local government and its funding would be improved as would their provision of services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The capacity of local government to provide equitable services and their efficiency and effectiveness would be improved.

This amendment reflected the commitment to consult with state and local government by subjecting national principles to parliamentary scrutiny. Any change to national principles would be a `disallowable instrument' and therefore may be disallowed by either house of parliament. In the absence of national principles on an issue, horizontal equalization, minimum per capita payments, and effort neutrality must be the principles adopted by the States Grants Commissions.

Consider the phenomenon of management of local government by the states. Operating under UNIFORM national laws, DECENTRALIZED, local or regional arrangements would be less hindered and less COSTLY in their operation. There would also be less CONFUSION among citizens about where responsibilities lie.

28^th March 1995 MARGARET REYNOLDS put a question to National President of the Australian Labor Party and MP, BARRY JONES, regarding affirmative action by state party units. The caucus voted the question as inappropriate for the parliamentary party but it would have taken years to get a proper response in the party forums. Caucus was protecting what John Button had described as a moribund organization.

24^th October 1995 The PM described the Liberals as `a fractured show based on state parties whereas the ALP is a national party and can implement progressive policies because it is a national party'.

*Comment: Labor was clever enough to have a national focus then; the problem was that a national focus was not engraved into the party constitution. Any party that insists on leaving real financial and decision-making power to its state branches is a fractured show. The Liberals can easily recover their national focus because their show can stay in pieces while their leader makes the policies. By the end of 1995 the Liberals were clever at national politics and before the new millennium became the national government while Labor held all eight states and territories. Labor was clever at state politics because that's where the power was. Only when parties demand local representation at the national level and financial power for their national conferences will they become truly national. Keating said that national economies are held together by national tax powers; it is the same with national organizations and their funding powers especially the ALP that has some influence over its government's policies.

The Liberal Party arrangement works for people who want a king. An advancing Labor Party would go the other way: enhance democracy, make its branches family and workplace friendly, open up its branches to everyone who will accept its platform as a starting point, purify attendance and meeting records and give its people direct contact with the national body on national issues. But then, the Liberal party could do that too - and demand some say in policy. *

Consider that DEMOCRACY in a political party demands that local branches catch up with the 1901 parliamentary arrangements and directly elect representatives to their national body and hand important funding powers to that body. In place of national representation via state conferences, power would be DECENTRALISED to local branches and, (for the ALP) in local workplaces, for union representation, and this would dilute the worst aspects of factionalism.

The failure of the major parliamentary parties to catch up with the rest of the nation's evolution to consensus politics and DEMOCRACY rather than the standing orders and structures that evolved from the days of sword-fighting, pistol duels and mass army confrontations explains much of the disillusionment of people who would otherwise join the local branches of those parties and would demand the sorts of quick answers Margaret Reynolds wanted.

An irksome delay by states and territories in implementing agreed legislation in 1991 required extension of the Fisheries Management Act 1991 to set up new statutory fishing rights and commercial fishery management plans. Statutory fisheries rights would give greater security to fishers.

The Wheat Board would be able to conduct intrastate trade in grain and grain products, other than wheat; the states had allowed this but this Commonwealth change put the trade beyond doubt retrospectively to 1989.

Responding to the queries about the effectiveness of competition policy, Paul Keating instanced wheat and grain handling as an improvement; we are the most efficient of all the wheat producing nations.

Ministerial councils covering agriculture, water resources, soil conservation and rural adjustment issues had been amalgamated into the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand. This required changes to a number of bills.

Government and industry cost recovery contributions to the Australian Fisheries Management Authority would be clearer and distinct, the multi-government Australian Fisheries Council would be referred to as the Ministerial Council on Forestry, Fisheries and Agriculture, fishing permit holders would be given more flexibility in nominating the boat to be used with the permit and the powers of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and fisheries officers would be clarified. An anomaly in funding arrangements for the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation would be removed.

The now Queensland Fisheries Management Authority had changed its name and lost the benefit of a Commonwealth loan to assist restructuring of the Northern Prawn Fishery. The bill would guarantee a loan of up to $40.9 million.

Consider the lack of FAIRNESS to farm households in desperate need because of DELAYS in federal - state coordination of funding for rural assistance and drought assistance, the CONFUSION about responsibility and availability, the DIFFERENCES in approach by the two levels, the DUPLICATION of responsibility for the same issues and the COST of involvement of two levels. UNIFORM legislation and guidelines with some DECENTRALISATION of decision making at the local level would simplify and hasten delivery of rural assistance and drought aid.

Rather than the many federal and state bodies named to oversee agriculture, water resources, soil conservation and rural adjustment issues, national bodies with strong links to local areas would be a more efficient, less costly and fairer alternative.

Both were reflecting South Australian and Western Australian concern about a proposed new wine tax and the Treasurer responded that the Democrats need to be free to consider the proposal. The South Australian government and the wine industry had established a review by the Centre for Economic Policy Analysis and this was complete with horror pictures. `It's better to have a sensible dialogue than to be on a war footing', Treasurer Dawkins said.

The government would sell all its shares in the successful research, development and human and veterinary pharmaceutical producing firm, Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. Exemption from state taxes and fees for the purchasers were provided.

There would be no liability for Capital Gains Tax under prescribed state, territory and Commonwealth incentive schemes… Income derived from state public sector superannuation funds that are constitutionally protected from tax on any of their receipts would be exempt from tax; the super funds would miss out on paying the tax and the benefits would therefore be treated as previously untaxed.

Easements and other interests in land granted by Commonwealth, state or territory governments or their tax- exempt authorities would come under the term `crown lease' in the Development Allowance Authority Act; amendments to the Tax Act will apply even where borrowings are made in response to a prospectus before the bill receives Royal Assent.

Registered organizations, mainly Friendly Societies, would be required to keep a record of assets transferred from an insurance benefit fund to a management or reserve fund. A High Court decision in Independent Order of Odd Fellows of Victoria v Federal Commissioner of Taxation resulted in the amendment.

The privatization of the State Bank of NSW resulted in amendments so that assets disposed of after the sale would only be subject to tax treatment on gains or losses after the sale; superannuation contributions that were in respect of liabilities accrued at the time of the sale would not be deductible; where there were doubtful debts at the time of the sale they could not be claimed as bad debts.

Taxpayers who receive research and development grants from state and territory bodies would be treated in the same way as those who receive such grants from governments and government authorities. Superannuation arrangements would be made for those bodies in the event of their privatization.

NEIL O'KEEFE asked RALPH WILLIS about media comments on superannuation being a tax. O'Keefe said there were reports that Australia was not a low tax country in the OECD because superannuation deductions were counted as tax. The leaders need to make it clear that a super deduction is not a tax. This is not the case and the TREASURER will be responding to the claims later today.

* Comment: Ten years later, in March 2005, the OECD said taxes had risen under the Howard government and Australian families with two children were paying more tax than those in any other OECD country at 51%. The Howard government pointed out that family payments were not taken into account and that state payroll tax was now being included in the OECD figures.*

The bill facilitated the sale of the Commonwealth's shares in the Australian National Line to P&O and exempted transfers from some taxes and charges, including state and territory stamp duty.

In the last three years we have given them real term guarantees. If there had been a fixed share of income tax allocated to the states they would have lost $5-6 billion over that period.

… between 1990 and 1993 … . When we give them more for health then they take their own (support) out. There has to be an economic power and it has to be here. Resourcing the states is important but we don't want differential rates of tax.

24^th October 1995 The Prime Minister, accusing the Opposition's Peter Costello of trying to establish a state income tax, said that world wide economies are held together because the tax powers are held by the national government. `If the states had the taxation powers then they could stop measures such as our award superannuation', he said.

`In parliament Howard is not confident and Costello is really about power when he talks about taxes rather than money. Members are urged to keep asserting that the Liberals will introduce a state income tax because that is really what they have in mind.

Costello says that if we give the states more responsibility they would be more abstemious in their spending but that is really wrong; there is no vertical fiscal imbalance here and, world wide, economies are held together when tax powers are held together by the national government. In the next three years there will be $2.8 billion to return the states to `85-`86 figures. Costello is about power, not money; if you give them money it's still financial assistance grants. Keep asserting that he has state income taxes in mind. The Business Review Weekly said it would be manna from heaven; continue to run with that.

* Comment: Ten years later Treasurer Costello was lamenting the failure of the states to properly use the Goods and Services Tax funds given to the states and their failure to abolish as many state taxes as he expected. He and Prime Minister Howard were critical of the lack of expenditure on infrastructure, especially coal export facilities at a time of high demand and Howard mentioned the possibility that the arrangements may be reconsidered. Ministers Brendan Nelson (education) and Tony Abbott (health) plausibly pointed out that their areas would operate better with more Commonwealth guidance. *

Consider CHECKS AND BALANCES. Two states objected to the wine tax. The effective pressure came from the local wine electorates through local members and from the Democrats in the Senate who could have postponed the budget. Commonwealth taxation POWER over the states was clear when the sales of CSL and ANL were legislated to be free of state taxes and fees

The FAIRNESS of payroll tax on many businesses has been questioned and was condoned rather than supported by the Commonwealth. Payroll tax may not be needed in the absence of the middle level of government.

COOPERATION was evident when the Commonwealth legislated tax exemption for state and territory capital gains, superannuation funds and land grants but the same could have occurred for local administrations if the middle tier did not exist.

The BUCK-PASSING AND BLAME, the public confusion about who is taxing whom for what suggests the need for UNIFORM, nationally imposed taxes perhaps with DECENTRALIZED and limited local exceptions (for example the current council rates).

This was an attempt at cooperation between the Commonwealth and states to achieve a 20% salinity reduction in the river Murray while protecting up to 500,000 hectares of land affected by waterlogging and salination. Queensland did not join the River Murray waters agreement signed by the Prime Minister and Premiers of NSW, South Australia and Victoria, and a schedule of the bill would authorise accession of Queensland to the initiative. A critical quarter of the basin lies in Queensland. Salt interception works had been completed and the bill included a salinity and drainage strategy, more efficient allocation of water, and improved budget management by the River Murray Commission.

* Comment: The basin supports 25% of the nation's dairy and cattle farms, about 50% of its sheep, and crop land, and almost 75% of its irrigated land and it was more than 10 years before Queensland, hard pressed by the desire by farmers to open up more land, began to earnestly cooperate with the other governments. By 2004, South Australia's federal Liberal MP, Christopher Pyne, frustrated at the lack of progress, wanted Commonwealth control of the basin and on the 22^nd September 2005 a meeting of farmers and academics in western NSW called on the federal government to take over the control of the basin *

Consider the DELAY in adequate action, the CONFUSION about responsibility, the lack of COOPERATION and COORDINATION, the DIFFERENCES in interests in the basin and the constant REPAIRS needed to salinity and other problems. All these mean environmental tragedy and higher COSTS to government and farmers and could be reduced by UNIFORM legislation with planned DECENTRALIZED options for water usage and administration.

Agricultural and Veterinary Chemical Products Levy Imposition (Excise) Bill 1993 Agricultural and Veterinary Chemical Products Levy Imposition (Customs) Bill 1993 Agricultural and Veterinary Chemical Products Levy Imposition (General) Bill 1993

The states and territories had agreed to seven bills to regulate and control these products under the `Agvet Code', the new Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals code. Although the states and Northern Territory would enact their own legislation their laws would be treated as Commonwealth laws. However offences would continue to be under the laws of the states or territories. The Commonwealth covered the ACT and external territories.

The Commonwealth would be responsible for registration of the products up to the point of retail sale and the states and territories for control of use aspects such as licensing pest control operators and aerial spraying. Drafting complexities and other federal priorities had delayed the legislation for 17 months. This bill permitted evaluation, approval and registration of products.

The sunset provisions of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Act 1988 was extended for 2 years to 30 June 1996 in the likelihood that the states would not pass the agreed code.

It was now June and the States had not yet passed the agricultural and veterinary chemicals code due on July 1. Further corrections were made so that the sunset provision of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Act would be extended from June 1994 to June 1996.

3^rd May 1994 Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Products (Collections of Interim Levy) Bill 1994 Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Products Interim Levy Imposition (Excise) Bill 1994 Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Products Interim Levy Imposition (Customs) Bill 1994 Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Products Interim Levy Imposition (General) Bill 1994 Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Products (Collection of Levy) Amendment Bill 1994 Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Amendment Bill 1994

Legally, levies had to be dealt with separately from other legislation. Seven bills covering these matters were enacted earlier in March and time was getting on for the states and Territories to adopt the agricultural and veterinary chemical codes. The cost of government was boosted by this need for interim levies in case the lack of state action by 1 July meant no cost recovery programs to pay for a national registration scheme.

Consider: COOPERATION and its COST, repeated return of the matter to parliament, INORDINATE DELAY in requiring action by nine parliaments, DUPLICATION with two levels of government dealing with the same issue and the absence of reasons for DIFFERENCES - all warranting UNIFORMITY.

Comprehensive search, telephone warrants, arrest and identification procedures were proposed and police and safeguard measures provided. `Ordinary', `frisk' and `strip' searches were covered along with a scheme for the taking of material.

Law Reform Commission recommendations urged State - Commonwealth uniformity and changes, including common text. Constitutional and technical differences prevented full uniformity. So far NSW had enacted an Evidence Bill, the ACT was to enact its own and Minister Duncan Kerr hoped other states would also enact.

New procedures were provided for authenticated foreign testimony to be admitted, with safeguards, in Corporate and ASC (Securities Commission), civil proceedings, criminal proceedings against Commonwealth, State and Territory law, and in related civil proceedings. The bills ensured that Australia acceded to the Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalization for Foreign Public Documents. Thus Australian residents would not need to get public documents legalized for use in countries that are party to the convention.

The bill repeals the State and Territorial Laws and Records Recognition Act 1901 and most provisions of the Evidence Act 1905 and amends 16 other acts as a consequence of the repeal. Provision is made for hearings, evidence and statements commenced before the amendments or repeals to continue under the present law.

Following an interim report from the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and consultation with the NSW Government, one amendment enables admission of evidence because it is relevant for a non-hearsay purpose to be used for a hearsay purpose, according to a briefing paper given to caucus. What does that mean? Perhaps this: if X tells a court it was well known in the street that Y imported heroin that is hearsay evidence. If A tells B he imported heroin illegally, that is non-hearsay. If B tells that to a court, B's evidence would be hearsay but would now be admitted because non-hearsay is being used for a hearsay purpose. Maybe.

Another amendment means that certain admissions made by a defendant in a criminal proceeding are not admitted unless the circumstances in which they were made make it unlikely that their truth was adversely affected.

Following a review of the Act and a discussion paper the bill proposed less costly and less cumbersome arrangements for telephone and computer interception by the Telecommunications Interception Division of the Australian Federal Police and allowed police to monitor or record telephone calls, without a warrant, in special emergencies. State police and agencies could seek permission of a judge to intercept interstate contacts.

Comment: In 2005, when the government was upgrading security at airports the dispute between the various police forces about responsibility was not experienced in Canberra, because, said the Australian Federal Police, `both the national and the territory police duties are served by the AFP. The AFP served both national and territory governments quite easily, and with no perceptible conflict.*

Following a review of the cost of interception, of changes in telecommunications and of privacy entitlements, by P.J. Barrett AM, Deputy Secretary of the Department of Finance, the government proposed changes allowing interception for money laundering, organized crime, corruption.

Information on each warrant, on arrests made, and an assessment of the usefulness of the action, must go to the Minister and the Minister must report annually to the parliament showing warrants in each State and Territory, and the proportion yielding to action and costs.

Adjustments had to be made to the Service and Execution Process Act to deal with the nine different jurisdictions, to deal with interstate defendants in civil proceedings, giving them 21 more days to appear than would be available in the processing state or territory. The Act excludes a state or territory law relating to service or execution within its own jurisdiction including judgments from other states or territories. The term `magistrate' would include Victorian bail justices and a challenge to a magistrate must be by application under the Act.

The Federal Police and the National Crime Authority would be able to certify enforcement over import, export and/or possession of narcotic drugs and they must report to the Minister. Certain officers, acting in good faith, would not be criminally liable for customs and associated offences, even for some state and territory offences and even where an offence happened before this legislation. This followed a High Court refusal to allow evidence in Ridgeway vs. R, 1995.

Here was legislation resulting from an attempt by Commonwealth, Territories and States to end reliance by the Commonwealth on their varied forensic procedure provisions, provisions uncertain in scope and generally with few safeguards. It also drew on recommendations of the report on Body Samples and Examinations, 1989, published by the Victorian Consultative Committee on Police Powers of Investigation, the `Coldrey Report' which would be adopted by other jurisdictions.

The bill laid down forensic procedures associated with Commonwealth offences, balancing the rights and interests of suspects against public interest and provided safeguards to protect under 18s, `incapable' people and Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. It set out requirements where consent should be obtained, where non-intimate procedures would be required, and where a magistrate orders procedures, and how inadmissible procedures may be a source of evidence in certain circumstances.

Notes the unanimous resolution of the New South Wales Parliament of 9 December 1991, calling upon the Federal Government to establish a top level, open, joint NSW/Federal Government inquiry into the bombing of the Sydney Hilton Hotel on 13 February 1978, and pledging the full co-operation of the NSW Government.

Requests that the Federal Government immediately establish a joint Federal - NSW Government inquiry, with the powers of a Royal Commission, into all of the circumstances and consequences surrounding the Hilton Hotel bombing, including the events leading up to the incident, the bombing itself and the conduct of the subsequent investigation of the bombing, and all other relevant matter.

Requests that the Terms of Reference for the Inquiry include a full investigation of the role played by all NSW and Federal Government agencies, including military and security-organizations, before, during, -and after the bombing.

Requests that any provisions existing in any Federal legislation. which would otherwise prevent full disclosure to the Inquiry by officers, employees, agents or sub-agents, of Federal Government agencies of any information under oath relevant to the terms of reference be set aside for the purposes of the Inquiry.

Haviland closed the debate. He said that Bob Carr had supported a joint inquiry as the Commonwealth had restricted the availability of some files. Haviland referred to the Holditch report.

JEANETTE McHUGH sought assurances from MICHAEL LAVARCH that the Commonwealth would offer full assistance and cooperation if a Royal Commission into the Hilton Bombing was established by the New South Wales state government.

MICHAEL LAVARCH said he had already made that commitment to the House. There would be no restriction on the flow of information and officials. There could however, be some caveat on the publication of materials.

* Comment: The NSW government unsuccessfully tried to encourage a Commonwealth Royal Commission into the jailing of a suspect, Tim Anderson, following a terrorist bombing at the Hilton Hotel. Many people believed that Australian intelligence thought, like the Dickens character, `better wrong man hanged than no man hanged'. *

Consider: The BUCK-PASSING of responsibility, the CONFUSION about responsibility, the COST of DELAYS, COOPERATION, COORDINATION, the DIFFERENCES in legislation, the DUPLICATION of laws at two levels of government, all these are good reasons for UNIFORMITY.

Where any non-citizen child enters Australia for adoption the Immigration Minister will no longer be the guardian when a state or territory is declared for the child. The states and territories would enact complementary legislation to assume guardianship.

Ensured that the Family Court must consider the best interests of the child when asked to grant leave for adoption proceedings in a state or territory court and clarified provisions that sever parental responsibility and parenting orders;

Coped with state and territory differences in presumption of parentage by facilitating uniform application across all jurisdictions. The 10-month period would be replaced with 44 weeks and the artificial threshold of six months cohabitation is removed;

Consider the CONFUSION, the DELAYS in achieving action, the pointless DIFFERENCES, the DUPLICATION, the legislative REPAIR WORK needed and the COST - all of which would be avoided by UNIFORMITY.

The oil pollution levy could be raised for commercial shipping using Australian ports under one national contingency plan bringing together national, state and territory governments and industry. The levy could be increased if necessary to allow the Australian Maritime Industry Safety Authority to raise funds quickly for urgent work.

Replacing the Minerals (Submerged Lands) Act 1981 and associated acts these `plain English' bills did not cover petroleum, which was already covered in the Petroleum Submerged Lands Act 1967. By agreement with the states and territories under the Offshore Continental Settlement, the Commonwealth would control the area of the continental shelf beyond the 3 nautical miles limit from the territorial sea baselines; the states and territories would control the area inside that limit.

A common offshore mining code was agreed to in the settlement, leading to a model for the other governments to mirror in this legislation. The day-to-day administration would be by the states, there would be joint authorities set up and the Commonwealth would have the final say in the event of a dispute.

Consider that there is no clear argument against Commonwealth control of the nation's seas under UNIFORM legislation. Thus COSTS would be minimized, the need to know where the three-mile limit for states actually is, for users of the seas (especially the recreational and professional fishing industries), and the need for COOPERATION and COORDINATION removed. Decentralized administration would be very desirable for inspection, objective judgment of issues and local emergency activities.

Question to PM The more controversial state abolition idea was floated by opponents of the republic as `hidden agenda' in the republic cause and worried some supporters of the republic.

`Don't run with the other debates now on. Don't get caught up with “abolition of states” and senate powers. We should just change our symbol and make the head of state an Australian citizen.'

(i) Consider the discussion on the republic. The resistance against change is strong in the community unless there is an imperative, for example, a nation in crisis. While people may see the logic of change, DEMOCRACY allows the airing of both sides of a question and when it comes to a vote the tendency is: `when in doubt, vote no'.

(ii) Consider that in the public mind, state parliamentary parties are sometimes seen as tarred with the same brush as their Commonwealth counterparts and a message can be sent by varying numbers of electors to the political party rather than the government.

(iii) Considering the meeting between cabinets, it can be conceded that negotiations are more direct when they are between fewer centralist governments than between the Commonwealth and local or regional governments. This implies one of the strongest arguments for the continuation of the present federal system, the CHECK against perceived Commonwealth abuse of authority.

While the `check against power' argument has been countered in this paper it is suggested that seeds of doubt will be sown in any campaign. For that reason, elimination of the one tier should be associated with a strengthening of local influence on national policy development. Perhaps a variation of the original intention of the founding parents of federation, to ensure that former colonies had some say via the senate, could be applied to local representation. If this is done the tendency of the senate to be a house for political parties rather than for citizens of the states, should be faced. One way to deal with that would be to give senators direct involvement at a local or regional level as well as the national level and pass `estimates' responsibility to the House of Representatives.

All three of those issues impact on the economy or lifestyle of people, and Beyond Federation needs to tackle them through public awareness campaigns as well as working through the political system to show the advantages of changing the system and to show that the disadvantages are easily overcome.

During the second Keating government between 1993 and 1996 important policies setting new directions for Native Title, Industrial Relations, Education, Health and Competition and many other policy issues or pieces of legislation were substantially delayed by state considerations.

The argument that the states are a check on Commonwealth power was unconvincing. There was little modification of policies through the prolonged negotiations and it was clear that the states, in the end, only have such powers as the Commonwealth is prepared to concede to them.

Yet there was convincing evidence of costly delays and discussion, legislation repairing and coping with state differences or tardiness. Many responsibilities were duplicated or administered by thee layers of government.

Apart from the more decentralized governments of the territories and Tasmania, federal-state relations was about relations between the centralist Commonwealth government and five centralist, city based governments.

Decentralization of options from centralist state governments to local decision-making seemed desirable for 24 major policy issues. All 24 issues warranted consideration of national uniformity in legislation and guidelines.

We may not be able to realize Tolstoy's ideal - no government at all. That is not the challenge for today. The challenge is to achieve simpler, clearer, less expensive, fairer, government, closer to the people where possible.