Federalism in Australia does not work. Some obvious reasons are large land mass, small population, strong party allegiances of elected "representatives" and the ever-growing vertical fiscal imbalance between levels of government. Then there's the structure of the Senate and abuse of constitutional powers by Federal governments. Add to that the unscrutinised decision and deal making that occurs under the COAG banner. It adds up to elected but barely representative government. This problem is of course compounded at each opportunity by the media and the major federal political parties.
After 110 years since the constitution was enacted, the structure of the Senate no longer serves the electorate. Each state has 12 senators who each sit a six year term. Six are elected every three years. Each territory has two senators whose term mirrors that of the House of Representatives. So 40 senate seats are on the line at each federal election. The problem is that to be elected in Tasmania a candidate needs a sixth of the vote which equates roughly to 60,000 votes. A candidate in NSW needs over 770,000 votes. Not a particularly representative system with today's population.
This vast discrepancy would be fine if Senators actually represented their states when exercising their powers and duties. In practice Senators vote along party lines and Independent Senators tend to come form the less populous states (fewer votes) and run their own agenda for the whole nation. However, I'm yet to hear of a Senator crossing the floor for their state rather than ideology or more importantly when there is a chance their vote may determine the outcome of the division. There's no chance of the WA Labor Senators voting against the proposed mining tax (should there ever be legislation for this thing we've been hearing about for 14 months) because it would be better for WA to not have the federal tax imposed.
The continued existence of the states is in increasing jeopardy as the continued expansion of Federal powers continues un-abated regardless of which political party is in government. Since the passage of Income Tax Act 1942 and the States Grants (Income Tax Reimbursement) Act by the Commonwealth in 1942, the states have not been able to raise sufficient funds to meet their spending commitments. They are instead reliant on handouts pursuant to section 96 of the constitution:
96. During a period of ten years after the establishment of the Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.
This is what enables the Commonwealth to encroach on state responsibilities like healthcare, education, emergency services and transport. It is coupled with the high court's generous interpretation of the corporations powers under section 51 of the constitution.
Further erosion of the states is caused by the states themselves as the cede powers to Canberra and through COAG negotiate uniform legislation across the country. Every time this happens the Commonwealth passes a bill which through the clauses of the constitution over-rides any concurrent state legislation.
With the continued centralisation of government and the unending love for socialist style handouts and government by the electorate, the question arises as to whether we need to keep paying for state governments at all?
The solution would need to involve the merger of many local councils and far better mechanisms for keeping councils operating within their necessary realm. Recently Sydney city council decided to revise history and refer to the British colonisation of Australia as an "invasion" in their official documents. Completely unnecessary waste of local government time and effort. It clearly reflects the skewed personal agendas of the seven councilors who voted for the motion. Revising national history is not an issue for a government with only 180,000 residents. Councils operate libraries and collect rubbish. Copying elements of the county system used in the USA for rural areas and creating large councils covering the metropolitan areas of the big cities would probably work.
The logical path for Senate reform would have to be towards true proportional representation. Based on 2010 election results, a candidate would then need about 335,000 votes to get elected. Having this method would also bring the double dissolution back into play as a means to force legislation through a hostile Senate. The double dissolution gets talked about a lot, but will never happen in practice. Too few votes would be needed by minor party and independent candidates to gain a Senate seat: this is very unattractive to the major parties.
Never thought I'd support the death of the states, but it seems practical, cost effective and would allow for far better representative government.
No comments:
Post a Comment