Monday, September 11, 2017



Chris Kenny "With apologies to a former Labor PM, we can observe that contemporary political controversies seem to have ensured every cockatoo in every pet shop has a view on Section 44 (i), Section 83 or Section 51 (xxvi) of the Constitution. .......... Whether debating the eligibility of the Deputy Prime Minister to sit in parliament, the authority of the government to fund a postal survey or the race powers and the push for indigenous recognition, the Constitution and its interpretation by the High Court are live ­issues. .......... On the whole, our rule book works remarkably well. A minimalist document, combining the strengths and lessons from the Westminster tradition and the American experience, it has proved to be wise and robust, a credit to the judgment and restraint of our founding fathers (yes, those much-maligned older white men must take the credit). .......... Even Section 44 (i) on disqualification for allegiance to a foreign power is perfectly fine in its intent; it is just that in the modern age it leaves the eligibility of our citizens exposed to the laws of foreign countries. Under a strict interpretation we could all be rendered ineligible to run for parliament in an instant: Kim Jong-un could proclaim a law bestowing citizenship of North Korea on all Australians and none of us would be eligible to contest the next election; a blessed relief for many. .......... Aside from that, the vexed issue of indigenous recognition and perhaps the trifling matter of whom we decree to be our head of state, there is not much of our Constitution you would want to change. Over-governed we might be, yet this amalgamation of six colonies in a federation, with local government subservient to state constitutions, does as good a job of melding the competing responsibilities as you might think plausible. .......... In other words, don’t blame the Constitution for our shambolic federal relations. Quite the opposite; the real problem is that all three levels of government seem intent on ignoring the rules and straying on to each other’s turf. .......... In the City of Fremantle as well as the Yarra and Darebin councils in Victoria, local governments have taken their eyes off rubbish collection and traffic management and decided to shift this ­nation’s national day. .......... Just a few years back, Marrickville Council in Sydney’s inner west passed a motion (subsequently overturned) to “boycott all goods made in Israel and any sporting, institutional academic, government or institutional cultural exchanges”. This is a level of government not even recognised in the national Constitution and it was meddling in foreign affairs. .......... We know “external affairs” is not the exclusive domain of local government. But could it perhaps fall to the states? On June 22 this year the South Australian state parliament passed a motion condemning settlement building by Israel and demanding Australia “recognise the State of Palestine”. .......... Here was a state deep in debt that has the highest unemployment rate in the land and can’t keep its lights on — South Australia, not the Palestinian territories — and it sought to dabble not just in foreign affairs, but in the most intractable international quandary of the modern age. Move over Bill Clinton, Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres, Jay Weatherill coming through. .......... The audacity, pointlessness and ill-discipline of all this is beyond the comprehension of most of us, who might want the state government to deliver affordable power or open a new hospital within a year of its due date and a bull’s roar of its estimated cost. Many a mayor, premier, councillor or state MP, of course, will take an international trip to indulge in the “external affairs” of sister city relationships and the like. We understand the junket-led imperative and appreciate that little harm is done, other than to the financial forbearance of taxpayers and ratepayers. .......... But it was only a couple of years ago that the then NSW Liberal premier Mike Baird was urging Australia to adopt a higher refugee intake: seemingly immigration was not listed as an exclusive federal power under Section 51 either; actually it is. .......... Seemingly valuing his own virtue-signalling over a consistent national approach or a clear division of power, Baird doubled down by offering free TAFE courses and public transport discounts for asylum-seekers. No one seems to be happy to stick to their knitting any more. .......... In Victoria, Daniel Andrews’ Labor government has dabbled in treaties, establishing a working group to progress an agreement with indigenous Australians. The website recognises three big problems: getting the parties to agree; the limited powers of the state constitution; and the fact this is an area of federal responsibility means Victoria can only advocate, not deliver. You don’t say. So it transpires Victoria didn’t need a working group … it needed a federal government. And we ­already have one. The states have also overreached on climate policy. It wasn’t good enough for Canberra to sign up to the Kyoto and Paris agreements and mandate a renewable energy target: the states decided to set loftier goals. .......... Weatherill’s 50 per cent renewable target is the root cause of SA’s power woes and now ­Andrews is following that path in Victoria. The green crusade by the states, albeit based on a federal subsidy scheme, has created the national energy supply crisis. .......... The confounding of the federation cuts the other way too; thanks to the renewable energy target, Canberra has an ownership stake in the state-based energy dilemmas that were once for the states to sort. The federal government’s micro-intrusion is so complete that it is considering taking a stake in an existing coal-fired power station or building a new one, an area of public ownership most states have vacated. .......... Our founding fathers might be rolling in their graves; although, just to be clear, different cemeteries in various ways come under local, state and federal jurisdiction. .......... The overwhelming trend in federation has been the expansion of the federal sphere — the increasing tendency for Canberra bureaucrats and funds to seep into every crevice. Old notions of competitive federalism and states’ rights have been brushed aside. .......... The feds have inveigled their way into the funding arrangements of every school and hospital in this country, once clearly state responsibilities. Now every ribbon cutting at every school sees a crush of federal and state MPs claiming credit, while they endlessly pass the buck over problems. Canberra has also waded into disability services, adding another massive bureaucracy to the cost of helping some of our most vulnerable. .......... And just a few days ago we saw Malcolm Turnbull go into Sydney’s Martin Place to make an announcement about bollards. Sure, it was related to national security, but here was a federal policy on bollards: you won’t find that in Section 51. From opposition, Tony Abbott promised federation reform. He didn’t do much in government and the Prime Minister inherited the challenge before parking the white paper process last year and referring outstanding matters to a subgroup on financial relations under the Council of Australian Governments. It is now lost in a maze of jargon. .......... This is where the hard grind of federation reform is to be had: adjusting the horizontal fiscal equalisation that rewards indolent states with extra cash from better performing states; and working to reduce the vertical fiscal imbalance whereby states spend vast amounts of money raised by the federal government. .......... Until states are more responsible for their own revenue-raising and can rely on a fairer slice of the GST snared within their borders, the levels of acrimony will persist while accountability and efficiency won’t improve. The states need more responsibility, not less."

No comments: