The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Now is the spring of our mild content > Comments

Now is the spring of our mild content : Comments

By Greg Craven, published 9/8/2012

The survival of Australian federalism should be a potent constitutional and political force

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
Russia, the USA, Canada, China, Brazil and India, all the countries near Australia in area, have at least three tiers of government, though this is not the same as federalism. Italy and France, larger in population but much smaller in area, have five tiers (including the European Union).

Every country in the world with more than 10 million people and every country of more than 500,000 square kilometres has at least three tiers of government.

Even citizens of the oft-quoted United Kingdom have four (or, in some parts of the country, five) levels of government – the European Parliament, the UK Parliament, regional assemblies (elected in the case of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Greater London) and unitary local authorities or, in some places, both county councils and district councils.

There are functions of government best performed with a certain population size. Some of these are too large to be taken on by local councils but do not need the whole nation to manage them. These functions would exist irrespective of the number of tiers of government and would cause divisions and subdivisions in a national bureaucracy to be created to manage them. Looking after parks and gardens and recreation centres is best done at the local level, but municipalities are too small to run a health system. Running hospitals is best done at the level of the states, but they are too small to have their own armies.

If the states were abolished, thus making Australia unique among the world’s large countries, the bureaucracy would remain the same size, and the levels of decision-making would remain the same. The only difference would be the people would not get to elect those who made the decisions at the intermediate level.
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 9 August 2012 9:00:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
good article
what's the "Cornwall factor"?
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 9 August 2012 3:00:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A most interesting and erudite article - much food for thought.

Is our Federalist system perfect? It would not seem so, and I have to wonder if the way our Party Political system has been operating is not largely to blame for the deficiencies. Federal-State cooperation appears essential in the first tier, and Local Government-State Government cooperation at the second tier - but both of these areas of cooperation have been substantially compromised in recent years by conflicting Party Political interests - as the former coalition government experienced significant resistance (to reforms in Education, Health, Water resources and financial allocation) in the Eastern States from the incumbent State Labor governments, just as now the Gillard Federal Labor government is striking resistance from the now incumbent Liberal/National governments in those same States.

Strangely, in the Howard years the eastern states seemed to be bountiful (in spite of, or because of their Labor governments), and the Federal government was producing surpluses and establishing a Future Fund.
Since Rudd, these States seem to have run into severe fiscal decline and deficit. Could these states, under their Labor governments, have been cooking the books? (Similar to what Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Italy and France seem to have been doing in the EU?)

It seems clear that greater transparency and far greater agreement and commitment is needed in State-Federal affairs (and in State-Local Government affairs), for deadlocks benefit no-one, and deception is contrary to both State and National interests.

Is the solution an inviolable charter of State-Federal and State-Local relations - in alignment with the intent and objectives of the Constitution? And, is there perhaps a better way to ensure truly Representative Government, at all levels?

I for one have had quite enough of the I, I, I, of the current Federal Government, and look very much forward to a lot more We, We, We, Aussie, Aussie, Aussie Oi, Oi, Oi!
Posted by Saltpetre, Friday, 10 August 2012 2:38:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What an amazingly conservative piece of writing (but then it was originally published by the CIS!).

Five things.

1. The people who most want federalism retained are state politicians. But do the informed public?

2. The federal system requires lots of pollies. Do we really have enough quality to stretch across the different tiers? It seems not.

3. The quality and efficiency of health care in this country suffers badly as a result of federalism with debates on who pays for what rather than what do we Aussies want from our health care system. All mechanics and no vision.

4. Governance and government can be centralised and values decentralised.

5. The current system encourages inequity (but then conservatives are not interested in equity). An example is the whingeing of Colin Barnett (another conservative and big supporter of federalism) about WA subsidising Tasmania.
Posted by guy, Monday, 13 August 2012 10:36:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy