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.