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 > Federalism is worth preserving > Comments

Federalism is worth preserving : Comments

By James Allan, published 16/5/2006

Labour market reform should happen, but the High Court must side with the states against the Federal Government.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Finally, someone in this country that gets it.

Finally, someone in this country that gets it. For some sad reason, the only person in parliament who has even hinted at this idea is Barnaby Joyce and even he abandoned that line of argument to a 'worker's rights' focus. (Although to be fair I know, the Finance Minister had his reservations as well, to what extent I am not really sure)

I'm stuck in a horrid position with this policy, viewing this from a federalist perspective I dislike this policy, from a market reformer perspective I am disappointed that we did not take this opportunity to at least become on par with our neighbour New Zealand. However, just looking at the basic ideas which govern this debate, Labour Market Liberalism vs. Labour Market Socialism, I have to support this policy. For this policy is representative of ideas, which are not even included in it's text, this policy has become a symbol of our faith in Free Markets.

Given all this, if this policy were to be defeated in the High Court, it would give the Unions and Labor a huge win and will set back the cause for reform a generation or two (like in France).

So as you can see, Howard and Andrews have created a policy that has seen me enter an impossible contradiction. If we were to scrap it now, it would be very dangerous, if we are to keep it, it will be very dangerous.
Posted by DLC, Tuesday, 16 May 2006 10:19:38 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
DLC, what are the 'new ideas' that this legislation is representative of; America's?? Also, it may be true that governments have put their faith in free markets but I think it's fair to say that most people within our communities here in Australia feel they are living in anxious times economically,(especially with the introduction of Work Choices) and have very little faith in markets that are pointed only to the almighty dollar and are ignorant of our relationships with one another.

If the constitutional challenge by the states in opposition to Andrews using the corporations clause to overide state jurisdictions fails, we will see first hand the beginings of the desintegration of our political system, all at the expense of democracy - that vitally important tool which has the potential to bring into fruition changes within our society that work for the people and not the mnoey makers.
Posted by Country Unionist, Tuesday, 16 May 2006 11:45:12 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
I agree federalism does allow the people to express their different policy preferences. Another benefit is that it puts policy making and policy makers closer to the people, to whom they are accountable, than a unitary system does.

The real challenge, I think, is to preserve these benefits while addressing the disbenefits of our system which has 3 layersof government, not 2. These disbenefits include:
1 Cost - we have more politicians and greater parliamentary costs per head of population than most other democracies

2 Accountability - despite the distribution of power and decision making under federalism, we still suffer a lack of accountability from our representatives. Politicians campaign on one or 2 key policies but choose to implement anything which is in their formal platforms which can be poorly defined and/or not debated in an election

3 Duplication and lack of integration - the 3 levels of government do not integrate their policy making efficient and effectively and at times duplicate services. Recently my local mayor claimed that we had no indoor basketball/netball facilities unitl I pointed out the local high school did.

I favour amalgamation of local govenment areas into Regional Councils which could be based on current electoral boundaries. The State representative of each Region could also be the Mayor of each Region Council. This would reduce the number of politicians and promote accountability and integration, at least between regional and state government.

I'd also like to see citizen sponsored bills or referenda at all levels to add further teeth to accountablility.

MichaelT
Posted by MichaelT, Tuesday, 16 May 2006 2:07:17 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
It really does not matter what industrial laws we have, because they have not been enforced for at least a decade.

The examples I have seen:

Employers not paying overtime rates, only offering the casual rate. Casuals not being paid a minimum 4 hour shift. (This is an industry covered by an award).

Company structures where almost all staff are "contractors" no tax paid, no super paid, no holiday pay.

Today a friend who erects scaffolding told me he hurt his back at work. The hospital gave him work cover forms, when he showed them to "The Boss" he was told I don't want to know about those.

On further questioning this company is paying its staff cash, no super, no tax, no workers compensation insurance. (compnay has operated for 8 years this way.)

Lets get real Govt legislation on industrial relations is irrelevant for most small employers and employees accept it because they need the money.
Posted by Steve Madden, Tuesday, 16 May 2006 3:30:56 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
Whilst I certainly don't like the bureaucracy in this country, I am certainly not in support of greater concentration and centralisation of power in this country.

I do favour the idea of market liberalism. However, it's worth noting that whilst some people may be all for Howard and friends to ram through their agenda at the expense of the Labor states, it's not inconceivable that one day the reverse may happen and then such people will whine like stuck pigs about their sense of powerlessness.

I can't help notice the irony of a supposedly "liberal" party hell bent on market reform being so determined to obtain more power for itself.
Posted by shorbe, Tuesday, 16 May 2006 4:12:00 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
On a related issue, one of the concerning features of the High Court case is that the referral of State IR powers was the subject of 4 separate referendums between 1914 and 1946, and was rejected by Australian voters each time. Unless I missed something this has only come up in the course of the case.

I realise that there will be some legal logic which says this is different but I cannot help but think that this is the executive arm of government asking the judicial arm to effectively subvert the will of the people.

There are numerous examples, many in recent years, where Federal and State Governments have sought to reach agreement on contentious issues, eg, water, competition, defamation etc. It was always open to the Feds to seek agreement with the States on a national system, I recall Andrew Murray suggesting as much and that the benfits of a unitary system would significantly outweigh any of the ideological clap trap in Work Choices. Of course that would involve compromise.

The reality is this is a hostile take over of State powers which the High Court should reject if for no other reason than the people have decided this topic 4 times. Maybe they should suggest another referendum ?
Posted by westernred, Tuesday, 16 May 2006 6:49:48 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
THIRTEEN layers of government for 20 million people, that's 1.5 million per layer compared with New Zealand's ONE layer. Is that system cost justifiable directly and in terms of the interstate bickering and jockeying for a slice of the action, the pie? And then, if not enough, those layers influence labour prices? It seems like something more appropriate to pre 1989 behind the Iron Curtain.

All but less than 20 per cent of labour is uncontrolled in reality. Why are we holding onto to a dinosour of a system that believes that labour is in reality determined by the open market?
Posted by Remco, Tuesday, 16 May 2006 7:24:13 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
New Zealand has the Population of Sydney and is tiny, why do we keep comparing things to our Kiwi cousins who's largest export since the EU is thier population.
Posted by Steve Madden, Tuesday, 16 May 2006 8:27:36 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
Huddart Parker was a High Court Case in 1909. Justice Higgins, outlining the majority verdict, described a list of horribles that would destroy the federal balance -- a warning about construction federal power over corporations too widely. Federal hotel licences given to any hotel that is incorporated. State libel laws could restricted to newspapers owned by individuals. Religous tests for corporate directors, and doctrinal schools in lighthouses.

We can easily add to this list. Private schools and private hospitals are corporations. Road projects and tollways are managed by corporations. Utilities are corporatised.

Australians have rejected referendum after referendum to stem the tide of federal power. In 1973 Commonwealth Control of Incomes was rejected. In 1911, 1913, 1919 and 1946 the people rejected Commonwealth Control over industrial relations.

The Workchoices legislation, if accepted, will complete the emasulation of the states, changing the constitution without approval by the people.

Conservatives will rue the day federal Labor or a party of the left can use the corporations power to nationalise industries or sweep in a completely different set of IR reforms.
Posted by David Latimer, Tuesday, 16 May 2006 11:55:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Country Unionist:

People in this country have not experienced greater prosperity since before the day of Higgins when we had the highest GDP per a capita in the world. The market is just the sum total of all the individuals whom participate in demanding certain goods and services, the market isn't some boogy man, it's moms and dads, it's you, it's me, it's everybody. A free market is simply the greatest form of democracy and meritocracy all rolled into one.

That last paragraph was just jibberish, so I won't even attempt to address it.
Posted by DLC, Wednesday, 17 May 2006 12:19:03 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
Another words, isn't it time we reduced governance in Australia, to take more charge of our own affairs instead of selling out to the thirteen layers of government (where even NZ has four million per its one layer).

Does controlling less than 20 per cent of labour by all that bureacracy is that not a vestige of a past that has gone like the Iron Curtain and its failed system?

Isn't it time we acknowledge control of labour is in reality a play by power, including by unions who in reality, despite claims of "workers's rights" is in reality about priveliges of some at the expense of non-members. And if you agree, what then is left? Nothing.
Posted by Remco, Wednesday, 17 May 2006 8:23:59 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
We need a new constitutional convention to end the vertical fiscal imbalance (the states relying on the commonwealth for funding) and CLEARLY states unequivically the seperate spheres of influence for each group.
Posted by DFXK, Thursday, 18 May 2006 7:51:05 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
Or should we reduce the significance of the states? States such as 10 per cent of the population, holding one third of the land and at least that proportion of its natural wealth. Why have states involved in labour, transport, education etc? Isnt it time to acknowledge we are left with a dated expensive, undermining legacy?
Posted by Remco, Thursday, 18 May 2006 8:00:08 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
DLC Wrote: 'The market is just the sum total of all the individuals whom participate in demanding certain goods and services, the market isn't some boogy man, it's moms and dads, it's you, it's me, it's everybody. A free market is simply the greatest form of democracy and meritocracy all rolled into one'.

That's right DLC, the market is not a "boogeyman" it's a concept. And your concept of the market includes mum's (not mom's) and dad's who all seem to live together in some kind of fantastic kingdom where everybody loves one another and cares about each other's welfare. Your the first person I've heard who has the genius to explain the "free market"; you must have insight way above that of us mere mortals.

Question: If a "free market" is 'the greatest form of democracy' then please explain the Chinese situation to me? I don't see any popularly elected representatives in their political system, yet they participate at great speed, in the 'free market'.

Please don't break down human existence to the low point of just a market. All I see, day in day out, in regard to the market, is corporation after corporation telling us how great their profit margins are. To the corporations however, the profits will never be great enough to provide fair wages, fair conditions, and the 'democratic' right for people to voice their disagreements with the boss without the fear of the sack.

PS: Australians speak English - not American English

Have a nice day.
Posted by Country Unionist, Friday, 19 May 2006 11:48:18 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
Response to Remco:

I think you are missing the point. When Australia federated, it was a result of people voting in that particular form of government, with two honest methods for the commonwealth to expand its power. The first was by referral by the states under section 51; the second by going to the people via referendum under 128.

There are those who would be happy to see the states disappear, but let's have the debate; let's vote on it.

To those who reply that the Howard govt was voted in. Yes, that is true. But, so were each of the state govts. This is one elected govt muscling in on the turf of other elected governments.

The reason Australia makes sense as a federation is not its population, but it’s geographic size. People in regional areas travel many hours to do face to face business in their state capital. What then the situation when Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane and Hobart are no longer centres of government decision-making?

The largest country without a truly federal structure is Kazakhstan; population 15 million and about the same size as Western Australia. China, which has four formal tiers of government, is not federal but probably would be if democratic. The largest democratic country with a two-tiered structure is Finland, although it does have appointed regional councils. Finland is half the size of NSW with a smaller population. New Zealand elects officials to both regional and local councils, so it is really three-tiered.

After looking through wikipedia for about an hour, it seems that Australia has a very practical and sensible governmental structure for its size and population.
Posted by David Latimer, Saturday, 20 May 2006 7:57:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have studied this issue and I have no doubt work choices
is unconstitutional. This High Court case will really show us if these Judges are just Government puppets. If these laws are not stopped there will be riots and over time a increase in crime.

How can our Prime Minister treat`the people of this country like this, it makes me f-ing sick. I did not vote for this Government and in my experience no one ever admits they did. Any Howard or former Howard voters here?
Posted by Sly, Saturday, 20 May 2006 9:14:28 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
Just clarifying, where I mentioned China, this is probably far more that what I intended to say. I should have said that there'd be little argument to dismantle a federal structure in a hypothetical democratic state equivilant to China in population and size. Let's not get sidetracked.
Posted by David Latimer, Sunday, 21 May 2006 9:57:19 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To David Latimer. What one layer of government for just 1.5 million people cf eg NZ with 4 million (and just one)? Fragmented education, transport, law (what's this extradition bit?)etc. State governments that vie for the share of the pie rather than on per capita basis. Where WA has one third of the country's natural wealth and just one tenth of the people. And again, what relevance is government to the subject of this article, ie. labour?

Does federalism work in Australia? Yes it does, but at a huge price. Yes low sovereign risk for investment, but what a price. State governments struggling to justify a role, a link, when in reality there is little and that little bit is created artificially. Federalism is dying and one only has to look at the recent past to see what has happened to the state powers such as in business, transport, environment and laws. The legacy of a new country - fiefdoms.
Posted by Remco, Sunday, 21 May 2006 3:27:06 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
DLC: I hope you'll notice the irony of someone telling you what form of English to speak (or write) when such a person can't manage with any standard form himself or herself.
Posted by shorbe, Sunday, 21 May 2006 8:45:08 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
Is there a Howard voter in the house?
Posted by Sly, Sunday, 21 May 2006 11:30:48 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
Is there a Howard voter in the house? speak up
Posted by Sly, Sunday, 21 May 2006 11:32:51 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
Not here. I don't even vote (as in I'm not even registered) because I don't believe in democracy.
Posted by shorbe, Monday, 22 May 2006 9:46:23 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
Response to Remco:

I don't understand your first two questions.

WA does not have one third of Australia's wealth.

The third question, about the relevance of states to labour: When the colonies agreed to federate, they came to an agreement about the powers which were to be given up, and industrial relations law was not such a power, except for the circumstance defined in section 51(xxxv). This agreement as outlined in our constitution is not being respected.

I don't understand your line of argument, but it seems that you suggest that to let federalism die, and hence ignore the fundamental compact which created our nation, is economically advantageous. I disagree, much in the same way that all monopolistic arrangments are disadvantageous. Selling out the constitution, without at least going to the people, seems like a nasty idea too.
Posted by David Latimer, Tuesday, 23 May 2006 12:14:49 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Remco, You should listen to David Latimer he seems to understand whats a stake here. Remco are you one of the Howard voters past or present I have been wanting to hear from?
Posted by Sly, Tuesday, 23 May 2006 12:35:43 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
This is related to "miners put spotlight on unions" Forum Question.

Tao, A week or so ago i sad is that you Barnaby and said go away.

I am sorry, I wrote the wrong name that message is for my mate

Dunart Joyce. Go back and read Dunarts post, He jumped into this
forum like a smart-arse and that message is now for Dunart.
Dunart thinks he is a entrepreneur but he's not because he dosn't
have the ethics and compassion needed. I am totally for unions
they are needed for balance in society whether you belong to them or
not. However i am very much entrepreneurial with the ethics dunart
will/may never have. Tao, be cool. That is what we are meant to
be discussing here which is directly connected to work choices
and its effects on society. The work choices bill was rushed and so
badly written it will be a legal nightmare for all. No other
western country has such anti-union legislation.

Have a Good day.
Posted by Sly, Wednesday, 24 May 2006 1:33:13 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. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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