AUDIO
 |
Archbishop Peter Jensen's Christmas Message 2011 on the centrality of Jesus to human history
|
Federal governments hate state elections. The Feds have no control over State polls, of either the process or personalities involved. Also, state elections are fought on local and often highly parochial issues, but the media inevitably draws implications for the main game in Canberra.
Kevin Rudd only too plainly displayed his irritation with pesky state governments in his recent well-publicised joint press conference with Kristina Keneally.
Last weekend saw the first raft of state polls for 2010. The news for State Labor in both Tasmania and South Australia was grim. In both cases, the ALP has held power for a long time, and the mood for change was ripe. In Tasmania, neither party looks like having a majority; in SA, Premier Mike Rann can form a government (just). Rann's challenge will be to prevent disgruntled outliers on his own side deciding to sit as independents, thereby reducing Labor's numbers in the House. Although this might seem unstable, change is good for democracy, as it prevents the arrogance of power and provides for a more accountable parliamentary process.
But increasingly one has to question the role of the states in our political system.
Despite an historic commitment to Federalism, the conservatives in power under John Howard did more than almost any government in living memory to concentrate state powers in the hands of the Commonwealth. Current moves by the Rudd Government to establish a national school curriculum and a hospital funding framework further extend this reach into traditional areas of state responsibility.
In a country with a small population like Australia, this is a good move. There are many other policy areas, such as business regulation, that would benefit from a national approach. The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) process continues to investigate avenues of harmonising state laws and co-operation with the Commonwealth.
There is nothing scary about this in itself. Long-term, a national debate on the role of the states is long overdue. However, these developments may mean that states with more liberal social reform agendas could set the pace for change at a national level by enacting legislation that other states will follow.
That is the rub for all federal governments seeking change and increased supervision, if not control. States and other agencies funded by the federal government can, by and large, play by their own rules once the money is in the bank.
It is easy enough to suggest that the states should yield to federal leadership in the national interest—a nice idea if a bit naive. The slip in the idea is that the money power of the Commonwealth is not matched by constitutional authority in, for example, health and education. Australian history suggests that a referendum to reduce states to regional governments under Commonwealth control is as dead as a Joyce Finance Ministry. That is why Rudd is unlikely to take the hospitals issue to a referendum, as he keeps promising in public forums.
Howard was helped somewhat in his centralising moves by the High Court ruling on corporations but that does not really break the constitutional barriers.
Rudd's stunning move to take back 30% of GST revenue to fund Labor's hospital reforms will undoubtedly make the States more reluctant than ever to trust a federal initiative or to manage one by federal rules.
National agreements have been around since roughly 1904 when the Feds got involved with funding tropical diseases, if my memory serves me right. As I said before, once the dough is in the states, there is zilch the Commonwealth can do to ensure that the money is spent according to agreed guidelines. It can't even audit how the states spend it.
It is worth reflecting on federalist circumstances in our church. There is a gap between Sydney and the rest symbolized by the loss of the Primacy many years back. If Sydney should proceed with lay presidency it is possible that the Province of NSW would come apart and two Anglican churches emerge as in USA.
As in all things human, decisions are not made on simplistic grounds but through a complex interaction of common sense, rationality, emotion, prejudice, status and all the rest.