STATE OF AFFAIRS IS BORDERING ON RIDICULOUS
The political pointscoring between jurisdictions on opening borders proves the middle tier of government has long passed its use-by date
WHAT a state we’re in.
The argument over Queensland borders has opened the perfect opportunity to consider whether this nation might be better without any states at all.
After all, a national government is necessary for cohesion and local government is crucial to our daily lives, but state governments can become breeding grounds for inefficiency and duplication.
The current state of COVID-inspired confusion proves the point. Instead of one national directive and road map out of the crisis, we have so many that we’re turning in circles. Not only do states contradict each other but federal advice as well.
All are being advised by medical experts, yet none of these experts seems to agree. So who do we believe?
Meanwhile, as our northern NSW neighbours struggle to cross the border to get to work, to school and to see family and friends – despite no cases in that region – the biggest threat to our health is coming from inside our own state.
The death of Nathan Turner, 30, has sparked a major health emergency in Blackwater in central Queensland, with a special COVID response team sent to the town in an effort to trace the source of his infection.
Three fever clinics have since been set up, with long lines seen on Thursday morning.
Geographical distance, not borders, is what has created so few cases of coronavirus in this country. Yet it’s that very distance that is the problem with our states. They are so enormous that they are practically pointless.
As a city, we have far more in common with Kingscliff than Blackwater, yet we have different time zones in summer, different laws, different rules and regulations.
Scrapping our states, as foreign a concept as it may seem, is not a new suggestion.
Late prime minister Bob Hawke called for the end of federalism, the system of government in which states or provinces share power with a national government, in 2017. The move was supported by constitutional law expert and Charles Sturt University lecturer Bede Harris, who says the very reason Australia has a federal Constitution is a negative one.
“It was due to fear from the colonies of domination by each other or by the new national government,” he wrote for The Conversation.
“Taken at its best, the adoption of federalism in preference to a unitary system was the necessary price of creating Australia as a nation. At its worst, it was a base compromise pandering to colonial jealousies, which now saddles Australia with an unnecessarily complex and expensive form of government.”
Dr Harris has a point. Excluding local government, Australia has nine governments and 15 legislative chambers for a population of 25 million.
“The costs of this are staggering,” he says. “In 2002, the annual cost of federalism to the economy was estimated at $40 billion – a figure that would be much higher today.
“This covers costs such as running state and territory governments, costs to the Commonwealth of interacting with the states, and compliance costs to business.
“But it excludes intangible costs in the form of time and inconvenience. Think of simple matters such as car registration or entry into a new school system experienced by anyone who has moved interstate.”
Instead of a state government, let’s have a state minister who is part of the national government – basically the national Cabinet, which has proven to be a silver lining in this crisis.
If we remove that extra level of state governance, Australia could have just one department of education, one department of agriculture, one department of the environment and so on, instead of multiple agencies.
“Making such a change would mean that, as in New Zealand and the UK, Australia would have a single (national) parliament with comprehensive lawmaking power,” says Dr Harris.
“That parliament could delegate lawmaking authority to regions and/or local governments, in the same way as state parliaments currently delegate power to local authorities.
“However, there would be no more disputes over which lawmaking power the national parliament had, and no doubt that national law overrode regional and local law.”
Indeed, let’s confer more power to the local levels of government, where elected officials are better able to hear their constituents.
After all, wouldn’t it make sense for northern NSW to be part of our local government area instead of in a different state altogether?
Streamlining governments means streamlining government responses, and less bureaucratic interference would mean a quicker response to major issues such as bushfires or a pandemic.
We have already wasted far too much time and headspace in this country listening to one state leader pointscoring against another, not to mention against their federal counterparts.
Most interestingly, there is already plenty of evidence that Australians would support abolishing the states.
A 2014 survey by the Griffith Federalism Project found 71 per cent of respondents favoured change, particularly to replace states with regions defined along rational economic lines.
As a passionate Queenslander, it still seems a tough sell – particularly when it comes to State of Origin. But in these unprecedented times, perhaps we are all in the right state of mind to break down old boundaries.
Australians would support abolishing the states