Joel Fitzgibbon is a name well known to those in politics, but as Defence Minister I must confess that I hadn’t taken note of him until now. The ABC reports that at the inaugural Edmond Barton lecture in Newcastle on Friday night Mr.Fitzgibbon described Australia as the most over governed country in the world and called for the abolition of the states. This is something that I have said for a long time.
Prior to Federation in 1901 Australia consisted of six colonies. Cooperation existed between them but each was a separate entity with its own economy, laws and government. Cooperation only went so far, however. One famous example of the substantial lack of agreement between the colonies lay in the different rail gauges that they employed requiring goods to offloaded and reloaded at state boundaries. In this context it is hardly surprising that the only way a single nation could be forged was by allowing each to retain a certain level of autonomy.
The existence of the states serves no purpose in the modern world other than to create waste and confusion. Australia’s three levels of government are cumbersome and, ultimately, pointless. Each state has its own police force, education system, regulations, taxes (in addition to Federal taxes like income tax and goods and services tax) and myriad government departments such as health, infrastructure, heritage, community services and tourism. Most departments are also duplicated on a Federal level. The costs of running each of these government departments in each state must be massive.
Not only is this duplication of services a massive waste of time and resources but each state also has its own government complete with an upper and lower house. In total there are 814 members of parliament in Australia.
Australia’s population is only 20 million. That means one politician for every 25,000 people. This figure doesn’t take into account the approximately 10,000 local council members across the country since each state is further divided into local governments responsible for things like parks, waste disposal and by-laws. While most local council members don’t receive any form of payment the salary costs for each member of parliament must be staggering along with the costs of keeping each building.
Leaving money aside, the separate states create nothing but difficulty and confusion. A nurse or teacher wishing to practice in another state must become registered there, criminals have to be extradited, cars are have to be licensed in each state separately and records aren’t shared, traffic laws are different and things like land tax vary. The states don’t even share a school curriculum. Moving state is like moving country.
So, if the current system is failing, what do I suggest? Simply abolish the states and redraw the maps with smaller administrative areas that are more like local councils than states, something like the British counties. The federal government becomes responsible directly for police, health and education. Laws are standardised, registration for everything is done federally. Taxes are the same. The smaller administrative areas become responsible then for things that councils are currently responsible for. Electoral boundaries and administrative area boundaries become the same. Each administrative are has a small body of representatives who are elected by the people within their boundaries. Another two representatives are elected to the lower house of federal parliament and upper house of federal parliament.
Canberra would remain the main administrative hub and different government departments would be devolved to different parts of the country. Geographical distance is irrelevant in the 21st century and placing government departments in different population centres would mean that job losses in the public service would be reduced.
I can’t imagine it happening but as Mr.Fitgibbon points out “duplication and inefficiency [are] costing the economy billions and it’s a discussion we need to have”.
The aboltion of states is something that deserves far more consideration. Just like Apple needs Microsoft and viceversa, the states provide an opportunity for xompetative competition between themselves.
Back when Sir Joh was the Premier of QLD he abolished Death Duties. The result, pensioners flocked to from the south to the warmer climes to die. But instead of dying as the crossed the border they lived for many years spending millions of dollars and helping the QLD economy prosper. So desperate was the situation NSW and VIC were forced to adopt the same approach on death duties. The end result – you and I win.
The very establishment of the federal government is based on a state structure. The senate is designed to protect state rights. I suppose it could be successfully argued that they are not doing their job and are more likely to follow party lines – but the principle remains and if the Australian people decided to vote for a state focussed party things would get interesting.
But ultimately you are right. Australians are over governed.
But how do we address this while maintaining a competative system of government. I live in fear of a centralised government whether it be liberal or labor. No good can come of it.
There are certain functions that a central government is good for, I think a centralised education system, health, police, defence and transport and communications are some key areas. But there are more localised and regional issues that a central government is too macro like solution.
I would propose the establishment of super councils. Abolishing local councils and states. These area would be defined by region/population. They would be directly responsibly for local roads, park, primary schools etc.
It would be the best way to respond to local issues, creating competition between the various councils. And create leaner more efficient government.
I could ramble on but my iPhone has taken a pounding on this.
But I just wanted to propose something to think about.
ha I should have read the whole entry before I fired off my ideas.
Seems like we are in agreement.
You do realise that Mr Fitzgibbon was using this as a distraction to restate the Labor governments proposal for a Republic?
All his ideas are “of course dependent on Australia becoming a republic”.
I actually agree, too many governments. But trying to sell something unpopular by plugging something popular..dodgy.