Comments on: Why the Liberals should be federalists again

By: johno

johno — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 04:47:08 +0000

It should come as no surprise that a self confessed conservative and former Howard Minister like Abbott is attacking federalism. As you have pointed out previously, Howard was a big government conservative and big government means central planning. As Hayek has shown central planning requires an agreed hierarchy of goals that the plan is seeking to achieve. With a Federal system there are the competing goals and plans of the local, State and Commonwealth governments, so it isn’t surprising that a big government conservative like Abbott would wish to curb the powers of other governments to enable his own plan to be implemented.
If the Liberal Party is to embrace Federalism again, it must first ditch its addiction to big government. This would require a historic shift as the Liberals have always presided over an expansion of government whenever they have been in power.
Temujin – I think the LDP’s focus should be on the space left vacant by the Liberal Party – individual choice, personal responsibility, markets, limited government and lower taxes. Re-badging the LDP as a federalist party would require difficult decisions about allocating government’s functions to the various levels of government. Despite support for the principle of decisions being made at the lowest level of government competent to deal with the decision, there is no ‘science’ behind determining which level of government that should be. Pursuing this path would distract the LDP from its’ main task of convincing people that big government is bad for them and bad for Australia.

By: James Simpson

James Simpson — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:49:19 +0000

I remember Wolfgang once said “just follow the money”. The centralisation of revenue raising (at least the vast majority of it) is the key to the problem. Difficult to imagine it ever changing though.

By: N

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:45:42 +0000

The best path forward for conservative politics is to return to basic and advocate the maximum decentralisation of decision-making. Whether it be enterprise bargaining shifting to a workplace or individual level rather than being industry-wide, the shifting of federal powers and responsibilities to the states or moving control of schools from state Education Departments to local communities through local school councils, decentralisation is a policy that both conservatives and libertarians can sympathise with.

There is also the problem of vertical fiscal imbalance. Increasingly, I am starting to think that we should return to the originally intended situation with revenue and abolish federal income taxes and embrace tax competition between states a la Switzerland. As the death tax example shows with the Bjelke-Petersen Government, having taxes levied on a state basis would in effect create a market for residency, ensuring that the overall direction of income taxation is downward; why stay in SA and pay 50% income tax to subsidise the welfare state if you can move to, say, WA and only pay 20%? With that I would also move health and education completely back to the states and abolish those federal departments (with the possible exception of universities)

It is disappointing to see conservatives such as Abbott and Stoner espousing centralist tendencies; it seems there are few in politics who are willing or able to clearly articulate the case for federalism. Certainly the prevailing view among the ordinary classes, at least anecdotally, runs along the lines of ‘we’re overgoverned so let’s abolish the states’.

By: Temujin (John Humphreys)

Temujin (John Humphreys) — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:27:08 +0000

I absolutely agree with you Andrew. I’m increasingly thinking that the LDP should re-badge as primarily a federalist party.

And more than just decentralising to the States… I think there is scope to decentralise various programs to a more local level (though I’m not exactly sure how as local governments also need reform).

By: Kev

Kev — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 04:08:08 +0000

Perhaps the suggestion reflects a degree of frustration by Tony Abbott with the place of federal-state relationships in the media spin cycle ?

An unashamedly very subjective view of the run-up to the last federal election was that, even when the states and territories dropped the ball - repeatedly - they pointed the finger at Canberra and squealed for more money.

Canberra collects the taxes and takes the heat; states and territories flush it down the drain, cry poor and suggest aggrieved citizens protest to the Feds.

Possible thought bubble by Messrs Howard and Abbott “holy cow - we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t !” ?

I am actually happy to entertain a debate on this subject and encourage Tony Abbott to chip in his two cents worth. As you say, it may ultimately be to the regret of the right-of-centre parties to take such an argument forward. But what the hey - the only certainty at the moment is the inevitability of change, so even political conservatives might as well try to ride the change wave.

By: Spiros

Spiros — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:27:36 +0000

“depriving Liberal state oppositions”

Speaking of which, have any state Liberal leaders responded to Abbott’s plans to turn their putative governments into glorified local councils? I’ll bet they are thrilled.

If you want to see a country that looks like what Abbott wants, look to England. Westminster runs everything from nuclear weapons to police to schools to the remants of the empire. And it’s pretty muched all stuffed and has been for ever.