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

Cost-shifting, blame-shifting and profligacy

By Paul Kerin - posted Thursday, 6 September 2007


Expanding local governments as part of a package to get rid of state governments is enormously attractive. Beefed up local/regional governments could efficiently take on activities (such as policing and fire-fighting) while being more responsive to local customers than remote state governments can be. These activities are routinely performed by local governments overseas.

Howard's claim that ratepayers should be able to vote on amalgamations is silly. If ratepayers were fully covering their costs, this would be entirely reasonable. But the Queensland Government provides more funding to its local governments than any other state. A state government should not be required to massively subsidise inefficient councils simply because the beneficiaries of those subsidies want them to.

Our system's failings are obvious for all of us to see. A 2005 survey of NSW citizens led by Griffith University's A.J. Brown demonstrated that many citizens want serious reform. Only 24.9 per cent of respondents had confidence in state governments, 40.9 per cent had faith in the federal government and 34.2 per cent had confidence in local government. Almost half (47.4 per cent) nominated their preference for a two-tier federal/regional system; only 12.5 per cent favoured the status quo. Tellingly, 61.6 per cent of state public servants - who know best the downsides of state governments - preferred a two-tier system.

Advertisement

Even politicians recognise that states are anachronisms. State abolition was Labor policy for decades. Bob Hawke advocated it before his election to parliament and after he was deposed as prime minister - but did nothing about it while in power. Howard said in May that "if we started the country again, that (no states) is what people would want. But I am not about to embark on a constitutional campaign to get rid of state governments, let me assure you of that". Pity! Why not?

True, it would require a referendum to approve constitutional change. Referenda are not easy to win. But the main reason why any federal government won't move to abolish states is the electoral risk involved. A move to do so would cop the same flak that Beattie is copping over council mergers. Beattie said recently: "I've never seen a group of politicians losing their jobs ever cop it on the chin. They scratch and bite of course they're going to organise campaigns." Imagine what state premiers would do if their jobs were threatened!

Howard recently called for us all to become "aspirational nationalists". Probably by design, no one has been able to fathom what he meant by that. He claimed that the debate over federal-state relations has focused too much on the roles of each level of government, correctly noting that role definition is "not an end in itself". But he was only half-right in saying we should "focus on outcomes, not systems".

Outcomes do matter, but realising the huge potential cost savings and service improvements is impossible without comprehensive reform. Otherwise, we're just fiddling at the edges. The cumulative effect of these fiddles might wipe out state governments in the very long run. But, to paraphrase Keynes, "we'll all be dead by then".

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

First published in The Australian on August 28, 2007.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

25 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

Professor Paul Kerin teaches strategy at Melbourne Business School.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Paul Kerin

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

Article Tools
Comment 25 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy