What began life in 2007 as a clever piece of political opportunism by new Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd to outflank the Howard Government on health comes to a climax of one kind or another today.
This issue has been about political theatre as much as, and sometimes more than, good policy from the outset. It was political theatre when John Howard was said to have pulled off the brilliant tactic of taking over the Mersey Hospital near Launceston (too bad his health minister messed it up). And it was political theatre when Kevin Rudd declared he’d go to a referendum if the states didn’t cooperate on improving hospital services.
Now the theatre has overtaken the substance. This morning’s media coverage felt like the red-carpet prelude to the Oscars.
And the winner is? Some observers reckon Rudd desperately needs a win today because he didn’t have a win with the CPRS and he has built up the need for health reform so much. It’s funny logic, because voters know the only reason the CPRS didn’t get up is because most of the Liberals welshed on their deal to pass it, but let’s play the game anyway.
As we know, Rudd spoke about going to a referendum in 2007. A referendum is, we’re told, messy, and unnecessary, and would fail, because the states would oppose it, and Tony Abbott would oppose it, and just, well, you know, referendums always fail. I can see the Twitter hashtag already.
The numbers say otherwise. A steady stream of polling has shown strong support for the Rudd plan. New polling today from Essential Research shows 56% of voters want the states to agree to the reform package, compared to only 26% who believed they shouldn’t. There’s some solace for John Brumby, however, with Victorians having the lowest level of support – 45% to 32%. But Mike Rann can also feel vindicated – 75% of South Australians back the Rudd plan.
It has such strong support because for years the media has bombarded voters with the message that our hospitals – part of one of the world’s best health systems – are disaster areas. Doctors, nurses and health professionals in general, who have a vested interest in more money being pumped into the health system, invariably stand ready to back this claim up. People are convinced state governments aren’t particularly good at delivering health services.
But let’s just pause there for a moment.
What do state governments actually do? What is their purpose, apart from reminding us of white Australia’s origins as a collection of British colonies? Their only real purpose is service delivery, funded by the Commonwealth because they don’t collect much tax any more, except nuisance taxes.
And if voters think they can’t deliver services competently, what then?
This is partly why the two largest states are objecting to the elements of the health package that take state governments out of the financial equation and direct money straight to local hospital networks. Kristina Keneally and John Brumby want to keep the money flowing through them, so a little of it will stick to their fingers – but also, one suspects, because if it doesn’t flow through them, what role do they have?
That problem becomes a lot bigger if we eventually move to 100 per cent Commonwealth funding (we await, of course, a commitment from some enthusiastic backbencher for “110 per cent Commonwealth funding”).
Bit by bit over recent decades the states have lost their purpose. Centralist governments of both persuasions in Canberra have encroached on turf once the preserve of state governments. The High Court has repeatedly ruled in favour of Canberra when that process has been challenged. The High Court even stripped the states of their right to levy some taxes. Some states have even voluntarily surrendered powers to Canberra. Currently, one of the most important micro-economic reform tasks of this Government is the elimination of interstate regulatory differences, in effect to remove the point of having separate state legal and regulatory frameworks.
Labor has always had a reputation for being ideologically centralist. Now the Liberals are centralists too. In 1988, the Coalition derailed a Hawke Government referendum to recognise local government by peddling a conspiracy theory that Hawke had an agenda to replace state governments with small, locally-based regional administrative units. Two decades later, there are plenty in the Coalition, including its leader, who think that’d be a bloody good idea in the primary state government service areas of health and education.
The primary function of the states now seems to be to block economic reform. States continue to disrupt attempts to provide business with regulatory uniformity. Victoria continues to sabotage the development of a national water market. South Australia opposes legal reforms it objects to. Buying off their opposition through COAG adds billions to the Commonwealth budget.
If we end up with a referendum on health, it should really go further and become a referendum on just what the point of state governments is. It isn’t the GST that should make the premiers fear the “thin end of the wedge”; the entire purpose of their existence is in question.
I think the importance of state governments is in blame carrying. Think about how bad public transport is, or public schools or apparently public hospitals.
Then think how terrifying it would be if the same incompetent state governments were in charge of keeping this country safe.
The other great value is in warning the local citizenry of the potential to turn into a backwater like Adelaide…..
Done by a national leader and warning of turning into anywhere that isn’t full of white people (Kiwi bashing is still fine, PNG, Indonesia, Argentina, less PC) would be construed as racialist and cause for diplomatic consternation.
The campaign to end the states and go to a system of national and regional government (yes we should be getting rid of the existing local government structures as well) should start in NSW. Ideally, it should have offices on Macquarie Street overlooking the NSW parliament. That way they can keep their eye on the very heart of the problem and have a constant reminder of why they need to win.
After the campaign has won the parliament building can become a Gallery of Political Caricature, except it will house caricatures on paper instead of the real-life ones we have today.
Looks like you are adding to the payload with this article, after all:
“the media has bombarded voters with the message that our hospitals – part of one of the world’s best health systems – are disaster areas.”
so as a result
“People are convinced state governments aren’t particularly good at delivering health services.”
however —
“What do state governments actually do?”
I know the perception is the reality and all that guff, but this is a knee-jerk anti-state argument based on some polling data about “mandates”. Woohoo.
@energypedant
The so-called ‘incompetent state governments’ would be very hard to replace.
If you’re referring to the military, do you really have that much faith in their capacity to keep you safe?
If services are hard to plan, coordinate and deliver on a state basis, how on earth would they be better managed from Canberra?
The record of the Commonwealth in service delivery is fairly poor: immigration, DSS, veterans’ affairs – more remote, at least as bureaucratic and at times actually abusive.
This might become the uncomfortable reality about the big health plan – I hope not, but it’s a risk.
It said it all recently when a Council in regional NSW couldn’t get together a quorum because of the number of Councillors who had a conflict of interest. Local government, particularly in regional Australia, covers too small a population base and, consequently, is vulnerable to self interest and corruption.
State government is an anachronism in the 21st century (though I can hear cries from WA and can totally sympathise with that). The complexity and cost of having State governments seem to me to outweigh any benefits.
I would whole-heartedly support 2 levels of government. The Feds (naturally) with much larger geographical areas to provide local government; and without staying within state borders, which currently divide those who have natural linkages — Albury-Wodonga being the standout example. This provides: a larger gene pool from which to recruit Councillors, and, hopefully, makes it harder for narrow self-interest to rule; gives a more viable base of rate-payers while at the same time provides a system that can be responsive to grass roots issues. Though presumably there needs to be a quota system to make sure all areas are represented in the local government.