John Brumby February 11, 2013
Reform must never stop, but ditching the states would be a mistake.
It has always been a mystery to me why some commentators are so quick to criticise a system of government that has given Australia a stable democracy, a vibrant multicultural society and one of the highest standards of living in the world.
These things didn't happen by chance - they developed as a consequence of our federal/state system of government, which has evolved for more than 100 years.
On this page last Tuesday (''A failing federal system''), Age senior writer John Watson canvassed the possibility of abolishing the states for an alternative system involving one central and many regional governments. While he ultimately favours a different solution to the problems of federalism, Watson expresses sympathy with the view that ''Australia would be better off if the states were scrapped''.
Putting aside the fact that abolishing the states is a constitutional near impossibility (requiring as it would a majority of voters in a majority of states), I believe the claim that Australia would be better off is profoundly mistaken.
There is no doubt federalism throws up some enormous challenges. Any system of government has its assets and its flaws, and I won't pretend that federalism is an exception. But its advantages far outweigh its disadvantages.
Federalism has given us a stable democracy, a strong economy and a vibrant society over many decades. It resists the centralisation of power, promotes innovation and competition and acknowledges that on a vast continent such as ours, Australians have diverse needs and state governments are best suited to tailor service delivery accordingly.
Think what would happen to these advantages under the kind of system floated by Watson: power would either be vested overwhelmingly in the central government, in which case the above benefits would be lost; or we would continue to seek agreement on policy reforms from all jurisdictions, of which there would be so many that the system would become unworkable. We should consider the benefits Australia enjoys from being able to fit all of our state and federal leaders easily in the one room. The United States, for example, does not have this luxury.
In the end, Watson concedes that we should reform rather than abolish our federal system - and I completely agree. That's why I have long been an advocate of co-operative federalism, and why I am excited to have been appointed chairman of the Council of Australian Governments Reform Council.
In a changing world, political and economic reform must never stop. Reform matters. And the only way to achieve lasting reform under a federal system is for all parties to put the good of the nation first, and work together to achieve meaningful change.
Some believe the clash of ideologies around the COAG table is an unassailable obstacle to agreement. I strongly disagree. History has shown that the will to work together in the public interest usually overcomes political preference. Further, COAG has demonstrated that it can work both reactively and strategically. The immediacy of the response to the Port Arthur massacre, with a consensus on the gun buy-back scheme, along with the reforms to national security after 9/11, showed how responsive our federation's cabinet of first ministers can be.
But successive COAGs have also shown commitment to a long-term agenda. Five years ago all Australian governments signed on to a program of national reform to boost productivity, increase workforce participation and deliver better services to all of our communities.
Despite the occasional hiccup along the way, significant progress has been made, and Australians continue to enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world.
The reform council is continually tracking the progress of these reforms, and is therefore able to tell COAG what is working and what isn't. We are seeing real improvements in health, education, housing, indigenous reform, competition and regulation. But at the same time, we need to understand that while progress is satisfactory, the rest of the world is pedalling faster. So we need to keep lifting our game - and the best way to do this is to set clear goals and then work together to achieve them.
Some of the negative perceptions about Federation are, I believe, a result of the fact that while the many positive agreements and achievements of COAG struggle to get reported in the media, the occasional failures are always highly visible.
There is also uncertainty in the community about the roles and responsibilities of the various levels of government. It is no wonder, for these roles have changed over time. Deal with this confusion, and I believe community attitudes to our federal system would change.
My colleague Professor Greg Craven, deputy chairman of the COAG Reform Council, recently wrote on what he termed ''leadership federalism''. It's a model that calls for the states to recognise that almost a century of Commonwealth dominance cannot be reversed, and calls for the Commonwealth to temper its dominance with collegiality.
This approach would mean that what John Watson describes as Australia's ''outdated constitution'' need not be ''frozen in time'' in quite the way he suggests. Rather, evolving circumstances and a century of judicial interpretation of the constitution can be accepted, but the federation itself - which I believe is one of Australia's great achievements - can still be made to work for the benefit of all parties, and all Australians.
Former Victorian premier John Brumby is the new chairman of the COAG Reform Council.
