The State Labor Government had become arrogant and seemingly out of touch with most of NSW. They had run down the state, particularly with some stupid policies of the Carr era, including Michael Egan's "brilliant" vendor tax on investment properties that meant that investors were hit at every opportunity. This of course lead to an exodus of capital investment in housing from NSW to Victoria and Queensland in-particular - and we still haven't recovered!
It's interesting to see the members of Parliament in action and to get to know many of them personally. Generally they are like any mix of people, most of them very decent and nice people with some standouts for good and bad on both sides. While they may well be nice people as individuals it is revealing to watch both Government and Opposition as they perform as a collective, the personality and culture of the Whole.
I have noted quite flippantly that there seems to be a happy balance in the House, particularly demonstrated by Question Time. The Opposition ask their questions knowing that they won't get a reasonable answer and that the opportunity will be used to attack them. The Opposition appear to be masochists in this role balanced perfectly by the sadists and bullies of the Government. Could this be fixed? Absolutely - start Question Time 1/2 hour earlier and use that 1/2 hour to allow for Ministerial Statements. The rest of QT should be used only by the non-Government members with time limits (5 mins) on answers unless the Opposition agree to an extension. We would then see QT being used to hold the Government to account and we would hopefully see more appropriate and respectful use of this time, maybe even improving the way in which parliamentarians are viewed by the public!
This of course has been going on for a long time, it's not unique to this Parliament. The question is however is this the best way of running our democratic state or can we do much better? As the Parliament is based on the Westminster system and makes seemingly very few concessions to modern decision making practice, I can only say yes, we could do much better. These changes should include significant changes to not only the operation of the Parliament but also to the make up of the parliament.
It was somewhat heartening to see earlier this year former premier Bob Carr raising this issue for debate. He rightly pointed out that there have been significant changes in the State/Commonwealth relationship since Federation. Some of these include shifts in responsibility away from the states in areas including health, education, industrial relations and taxation. Bob Carr suggested reducing the number of Parliamentarians significantly and while there would be a need to address how elected representation was maintained, I think that it is something that should be explored. The shape and function of the State is something that is achievable by the desire of the state and is much more likely to be achieved than other grander visions such as the removal of states.
Hi Greg,
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that Government of any persuasion could better represent their constituencies. Though I believe that we are over represented. Whilst it is true that the majority of Australians live in major cities and towns, there remain a significant number of us living far and wide across our country.
The ‘Fathers’ of our federation did very well. For their time. However, and even some members of the High Court have opined, the constitution can be a malleable document, within strict precedential guidelines. Though Justice Kitto clearly did not!
It is here that a cogent argument could be mounted, especially under the Heads of Powers at s51 & s52 where “The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth”.
There are now so many areas of law that affects the commonwealth as a whole that weren’t envisaged in the late 19th century. As you write health and education, industrial relations and taxation are some. There are others, too, such as law enforcement. Police should not need to seek an extradition order to bring a person from interstate to answer a charge for an indictable offence. There are others that are being addressed through other means, such as mutual recognition of certain licences and qualifications.
I have long been a “states” abolitionist. However, I believe there needs to be a strong local focus in many other areas. Perhaps expanded local government – regional government.
There is another area of participation that must be fostered. Constituent participation. It is not acceptable that people complain vociferously in the print and talk back media, yet never get involved in grass roots politics. If you only exercise your constituent responsibilities at each election, then you will get the politician you deserve. We must all be better citizens.
Just some thoughts.