Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Abolishing the states - the benefits ignored

By John August - posted Tuesday, 30 August 2005


Beyond Federation (BF) (of which I'm a member) advocates the abolition of state government in Australia.

As well as developing models for change and a detailed appreciation of the issues, we acknowledge points in the federalist argument - including its benefits - and engage with them constructively.

One major federalist is Professor Greg Craven from Curtin University. His article (in Policy, Winter 2005) while witty, makes a serious misrepresentation of the arguments for state abolition. Craven takes a one-eyed view of the benefits of federalism, refuses to acknowledge there could be any problems with federalism and claims our imperfect federation captures the benefits of an ideal federation.

Advertisement

Craven also refuses to engage with BF's positions about waste and the arbitrariness of state boundaries, or acknowledge possibilities for larger constitutional change. He attaches problems and agendas to BF's position that just don't exist, including claims that we:

  • are cheering Howard;
  • hail from Whitlam;
  • claim a monopoly on wisdom;
  • only have advocates in New South Wales and Victoria;
  • ignore the need for independent regional initiative;
  • refuse to acknowledge population differences within Australia; and
  • are "centralists".

But as I'll demonstrate, Craven looks at the world with one eye shut.

Craven sees strange motives in those who might dare oppose him: we're deluded, arrogant, irrational, elitist and so forth. In fact, BF tries to acknowledge the opposition - seeking better ways of realising the same positives. Moreover, we'd never question the motives of our opponents.

Craven tries to associate state abolition with Howard's recent frustration with the states. But BF's discussion long predates Howard's public frustrations and we certainly don't want to give the Howard Government (or any government, for that matter) carte blanche to do whatever it likes. We acknowledge the importance of checks and balances - but not if you're shooting yourself in the foot.

He claims state abolition is only pushed by residents of NSW and Victoria. But we have proponents in Queensland - including the Constitutional lawyer A.J. Brown at Griffith University; several Tasmanian councillors planned to attend our Gippsland congress and there's been support in Tasmanian newspapers - including a Hobart Mercury editorial; and other advocates include Dean Jaench in South Australia and Dr Chrissy Sharpe, the former Greens MLC in Western Australia.

Advertisement

In 1997, "The Big Conversation" was held throughout Australia. Virtually all forums wanted a stronger role for local government and approximately half the forums explicitly explored removing the states. This was a majority of those in SA, WA, TAS, NT and NSW.

In 2001, A.J. Brown surveyed Queenslanders and found about 60 per cent of the respondents expected and looked forward to basic changes. About 40 per cent were interested in more than minor change, including state abolition.

Contrary to claims by Craven that we are politically narrow, perhaps inspired by Whitlam, BF has support from across the political spectrum. We've had Liberal Party members address our congresses over problems like the Murray-Darling River. And we have Vietnam Veterans among our number who feel strongly about their contribution to the anti-Communist cause.

Craven acknowledges our claim of waste but says we refuse to acknowledge the benefits of representation (which is incorrect). We have waste through the collision of services - apart from duplication and inconsistent regulation, government departments spend money shifting the cost to other levels of government rather than spending it on services. There are also people moving between states. Mark Drummond, a Canberra researcher, has calculated the cost to be about $30 billion-a-year, but recent calculations posit an even higher figure.

While Craven claims federation has benefits, he makes no effort to measure their worth so they can be compared to its costs. The best Craven can do is put the word "savings" in quotation marks to discredit it without looking further.

BF agrees with Craven that national powers have increased over time, and historically, the states surrendered their taxation powers and did not try to regain them. Yes, if the Commonwealth did not have taxation, you'd have fewer problems with the distribution of responsibility, power and resources. But the cure would be worse than the disease.  We prefer to think of Australia as a community, willing to share both benefits and costs. Unless we take care, the different participants will squabble over resources. We need to agree on principles and common minimum standards so that the sharing is not continuously contested; but we want to give different regions autonomy as well. It's a challenge, sure – but it's better than Australia being a collection of self-serving principalities.

Craven tries to use international comparisons to shore up his case in favour of federalism. He notes federations are emerging overseas such as in the European Union and the break-up of the formerly unitary United Kingdom into Scotland and Wales. However, in these examples the political units capture substantial historical and social differences - there's no similarity to Australia. Craven claims the Australian Federation has delivered decentralisation. But international comparison suggests Australia's state and Commonwealth governments are centralised - our system is "duplicated centralism" - not "decentralised federalism" as Craven claims.

Craven is blind to the fact many people in the country see the state capitals as dominating. Country residents in NSW joke that NSW means "Newcastle, Sydney and Woollongong" or "NSW Stops at Wagga". Max Bradley, previously a councillor in NSW's Berrigan Shire sees the dominance of Sydney and doesn't even notice Canberra. Dr Sharpe in WA notes that while some people in Perth see the eastern states grabbing a disproportionate share of the resources from WA, country residents see Perth claiming a disproportionate share of WA resources.

Craven admits the states are very similar but tries to claim the smaller differences are significant. BF acknowledges that "smaller, subtler" differences exist. The point, however, is that there are more differences within the states than between them. A farmer in northern NSW has more in common with a farmer in southern Queensland than with a Sydney resident.

These differences are best captured in a level below that of the states. Local government, regional government - call it what you will. We agree there are differences in the Australian population, it's just that the states steamroll over these differences without looking. While local government is a creature of state government, we're willing to consider giving local government constitutional protection. So, we are not the "centralists" Craven claims we are.

Our argument is a lot more subtle than Craven claims. But, yes, we do say state boundaries are arbitrary "lines on a map", though Craven might try to ridicule the point. A.J. Brown's research suggests the boundaries of NT and SA - cutting a swathe through the middle of Australia - originate in the Treaty of Tordesillas from 1494. When the Pope divided the world between the Spanish and Portuguese, the contested boundary of their domains passed through the middle of Australia. It meant the UK, trying to be sensitive to foreign interests, settled in eastern Australia first and the lines that give SA and NT their identity originated in this long-distant historical accident. This is but one example of how Australia's state boundaries developed more by accident than design.

Craven prefers to emphasise current differences between the states, regardless of history. Well, if those differences are that significant, fair enough. Mere history does not of itself provide an argument - we'd be the first to agree. But history does tell us that our current boundaries are arbitrary and not something to get worked up about.

Craven claims removal of the states means an end to local initiatives and prerogatives. But regions, rather than states, could pursue local initiative. We could improve the links between levels of government - for example mayors could be representatives in the upper house - and this would improve regional influence. It's not like the current Senate performs its intended function as a house of state representation. This has long since been lost in party dominance and rivalry.

Craven claims the states are "laboratories". But in reality we have a lot of bloody-mindedness and difference for its own sake. People in trades like teaching, nursing, plumbing are frustrated at the hurdles involved in having your qualification recognised in another state - a boiler maker (sheet metal fabricator) spoke about his frustrations in working across the country at our Albury-Wodonga congress. And if you want new ideas, you can learn a lot from other Western democracies. But to the extent you really need experimentation, this could be implemented by giving regions some freedom to do things differently – perhaps on application to an extra-governmental body like the High Court.

Craven ridicules Australia's lack of significant constitutional change. While this is true, many proposals for change were political axe grinding - be it Menzies' attempt to ban the Communist Party or Labor's attempt to get nationalisation of industry into the Constitution. These proposals must have made many Australians cringe, regardless of their politics otherwise.

Far from being "set in stone", our founding parents saw the Constitution as a dynamic document, not something operating as the "dead hand of the past". It seems they did not appreciate the difficulties that party politics would engender. The processes for constitutional change were never intended to be an insurmountable barrier - they were there to ensure changes would be worthy. This is in contrast to commentators like Craven who seem to say the constitution is written in stone and we even think about changing it at our peril.

Constitutional change is not the only possibility. Craven notes the states have been under siege. He seems to be saying that just because the states are so weak, no one could be bothered to kill them off now. But, to us, they're still as wasteful, still as frustrating as they've always been. Craven stops short of observing that, in time, the states could wither away to a mere shell and changes to the Constitution would be merely cosmetic. This is not something we advocate - it would mean that we never engaged with the issue of what Australia means and the ad hoc progression would be destructive and wasteful. But it is another possibility if we refuse the potential for constitutional change.

One worthy constitutional change is state abolition. While Craven claims otherwise, BF would be willing to accept Australia not going in that direction, if everyone really did think that. Perhaps we have a respect for Australians which Craven lacks. In any case, state abolition has not really been discussed and has never really been on the table. It may have to be done in stages, but we plan to make principled advocacy towards this goal.

So, I hope you're feeling a little more positive about the idea of abolishing the states. Disagree with us if you will but please, disagree with us and not a straw man - not something nobody is in fact saying!

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

Article edited by Eliza Brown.
If you'd like to be a volunteer editor too, click here.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

33 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

John August is the convenor of Abolish the States Collective, and of the group Sydney Shove.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by John August
Related Links
Issues, Problems and Solutions in State Abolition
Symposium on the Future of Regionalism

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of John August
Article Tools
Comment 33 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy