| Outline |
Australia's traditional system of government is at risk. This document briefly
outlines various interconnected sources for concern related to:
Such potential and actual governance failures are particularly serious at
a time when external threats seem far greater than they have for two generations
[1,
2,
3,
4,
5].
If such dysfunctions in Australia's system of government are not corrected,
then:
May 2003
|
| Threats
to Democracy
|
CHALLENGES TO Australia's
democratic institutions
While the following discussion of problems affecting the democratic
process focuses on Australia's situation (and relies heavily on Queensland
examples), the diagnosis appears to have more general relevance.
Democratic institutions (ie the effective power of elected representative
government) have been under challenge for at least two decades.
Symptoms of this decline include perceptions about:
Within one party (the ALP) there has been extensive
debate about the need
for fundamental reform. It has also been suggested that solutions can not
be found through internal reform - because the real problem may be that
the national political process is losing its relevance to local
and global arenas [1]
At an international level questions
about the effectiveness of democratic institutions also include:
- loss of power by parliament in the face of globalization and autocratic
government, and the corruption of institutions for political advantage;
- the effectiveness of democracy in managing a society's collective
knowledge;
- perceived conspiracies by elites;
- suppression of rights; and
- philosophical fashions which have made it difficult to challenge autocratic
leaders
Several causes can be suggested for these symptoms (eg increasing complexity;
globalization; lack of support from a competent Public Service or independent
policy institutions; post-modern cynicism; a descent into populism).
One key conclusion that will emerge is that, as governments' challenges
have become too complex for simple solutions to be identified, democratic
societies have tended to support political elites who unrealistically
declare that the only issues are 'values', promise simple solutions and re-engineer government machinery and other
institutions to ensure that tame 'experts' tell them what they want to hear.
First the increasing complexity of the issues
which governments have to deal with since the 1970s has reduced their ability
to generate effective solutions.
For example:
- in the 1970s 'great society' ambitions to re-engineer societies to
overcome disadvantage were generally frustrated - a problem which analysts
often ascribed the limits to rationality ie to the counter-intuitive responses
of complex social systems to simplistic state initiatives;
- in the 1970s and 1980s the methods for managing the macro-economy
which governments had used with apparent success in the post WWII era
were no longer effective - arguably because strong feedback effects
between price increases and wages led to stagflation;
- environmental constraints emerged for which no realistic long term
solutions have yet been able to be envisaged.
- from the 1970s the pace of change in the natural, social and
political environment has accelerated. One result of this has been a
change in they way organisations are managed - specifically the
emergence of techniques
for strategic planning / management. However this pace of change
has increased complexity in the issues that have to be dealt with by
political debate - as not all perceive that familiar relationships and
assumptions can quickly go out of date
- globalization in the 1990s has introduced cultural differences as
a factor in policy and debates - which raises almost insuperable problems
because of the difficulty of effective communication across cultural boundaries
and of developing a global order able to accommodate cultural differences
(eg see The Second Failure of Globalization?);
-
poor individual behaviour resulting from a breakdown in morality has
become an increasingly important factor in social outcomes which the state
can do little that is effective to correct (see [1]
and Moral Foundations (below) and comments in
About Child Sex Abuse and
in Competing Civilizations).
This may be the origin of (a) so-called 'junk politics' which are
said to reduce state action to moralizing and symbolic gestures [1]
and (b) growing state pressure to define and enforce moral principles
which would result in the loss of the political and economic benefits
of individual liberty (see below);
-
difficulties have become obvious in planning transport options in
traditional ways in Brisbane (ie one element at a time) not only
because of the dependence of each element on the total transport
network, but because there is a need to simultaneously and dynamically
evaluate and manage (a) individual transport elements (b) the network
(c) the effect of a crisis in the global financial system on project
funding (d) a possible discontinuity in transport technologies and
preferences related to the global peak oil event and (e) an associated
shift in regional location choices.
Increased complexity has also made adequate public debate about some issues
very difficult, and contributed to perceptions (or the reality) of deliberate
deception of the public by political leaders [1].
For example:
The problem is not confined to national politics as attempts to
develop solutions to a global environmental challenge (climate change)
appears also to in danger of over-simplifying the problem to the point
where proposed solutions could be ineffectual and hazardous (see
Climate Change; 'No time to
lose' in doing exactly what?).
Complexity also appears to contribute to perception of conspiracies by
elites. Theories about 'conspiracies' seem to emerge from sources who do
not understand how political and economic affairs are conducted in practice
and thus can't say how those practices might be improved, and find it convenient
to ascribe problems to elite 'conspiracies' (see
About 'Grand Conspiracy' Theories).
Second globalization,
which has accelerated in recent decades, has increased the difficulties
governments face. For example, economic activity has become harder for
governments to influence.
Globalization of economic activity through improved transport and communication
and the raising of skills in previously under-developed states has:
- increased the economic significance of international trade and investment
and the need for compliance with international standards - and thus reduced
the ability of elected governments to define rules and arrangements to
suit domestic desires;
- reduced the scope for higher tax rates on individuals or corporations
(because of the need to compete with other regimes, some of whom have
low environmental and social welfare expectations) - and thus reduced
the scope for public spending;
- increased the importance of specialized market and technological knowledge
as the basis for economic competitive advantage (because of a general
shift of capital-intensive production to lower wage countries) - and thus
further reduced the ability of democratic institutions (who can never
possess this specialized and constantly-changing information) to take
a constructive lead in stimulating economic change (see
Economic Solutions
appear to be Beyond Politics).
Democratic governments have tried to respond to the economic consequences
of globalization by:
- reducing the role of the state [1];
or
- undertaking what Robert Reich in the 1980s identified as The Work of
Government - ie creating sound regulatory and taxation regimes to attract
business, and providing quality economic inputs (eg an educated and skilled
workforce, infrastructure, and technological infrastructure); or
- 'third way' governance
arrangements - under which it is assumed that a global market will drive the
economy and that government's should seek to compensate for the social costs
and empower the community to compete.
However none of these options provide democratic institutions with much power
to set overall directions for a community.
An equally significant, and universally ignored problem, is that
globalization has encouraged political leaders to try to act in
international arenas on the basis of domestic political paradigms in
environments in which those paradigms are much less appropriate. US
unilateralism in relation to the 'war on terror' is a notable example (see
The Second Failure of Globalization?).
The problem is that:
- cultural assumptions (and associated social institutions) are critical
factors in the ability of a society to archive material prosperity - or to
successfully adopt a system of (say) democratic capitalism (see
Competing Civilizations);
- this constraint is universally put in the 'too hard' basket and
ignored - thus creating huge potential for conflicts
Third ill-advised
changes to machinery of government in an effort
to overcome the above problems has further reduced the effective influence of
elected governments because:
- governments tended to assume that when their policy ambitions were frustrated,
the fault must lie in the administrative institutions - and so the political
system eroded the knowledge and skill base of its
key support institutions by installing cronies and 'yes men';
- public functions have become increasingly market, rather than policy,
driven as a result of privatization or the adoption of 'commercial' goals
in an attempt to overcome funding constraints.
Breaking down their administrative support has led some political leaders
to:
- be seen to be arrogant - perhaps because, having surrounded themselves
with cronies and 'yes men', they do not understand the need to communicate
with segments of the community who do not share their assumptions;
- experience sudden electoral reversals (see
The Origin and
Spread of the Queensland Effect);
- apologize constantly for administrative failings to avoid the perception
of arrogance [1];
- be seen to be good at nothing but winning elections [1].
It has been suggested that it is a major problem
that senior civil servants are no longer regarded as useful sources of policy
advice - as the success of democratic models (and the reason they did not turn
into the 'mob-ocracy which opponents feared when universal suffrage was granted)
was because of the political and cultural role of the senior civil servants
[1].
As noted below the
loss of professional public services now makes it possible for political
populists to do massive harm to the public interest, in ways that were not
possible in the past.
Fourth, changes in epistemology (ie in
theories about the nature of knowledge) as reflected in (so-called) post-modern
assumptions have become pervasive in many university humanities faculties and
influenced the way in which a generation of their students think about policy
issues. This assumption effectively denies the existence of public truth (as
claims about truth are seen to always reflect the assumptions which particular
social groups make for their own political advantage).
In practice asserting that all claims about 'truth' are subjective leads
to many real-world dysfunctions (eg practical knowledge and experience have
been devalued resulting in reduced institutional capabilities and 'taboos' have
emerged on the study of some critical, especially cross-cultural, issues - see
Eroding the West's Foundations).
Furthermore these assumptions imply that any statement of public policy or attempt
to debate policy, which are foundational components of democratic governance,
must be meaningless.
In the absence of agreement about 'public truth' real democratic governance
is essentially impossible, and national cohesion probably requires some sort
of social hierarchy (as has been the East Asian tradition because of adherence
to 'truth-denying' epistemologies - see 'Asia'
Literacy).
Fifth in the absence of viable solutions, the democratic process has
tended to install populist governments - those which
speak of solutions which are:
- trendy enough to bluff the media and other elites (who carry public opinion) though they
lack practical substance (see Towards Good
Government in Queensland and
Queensland's Challenge
which outlines the ongoing 'nightmare' that resulted
from a lack of practical competence in attempting to implement the
'dreams' of Queensland elites);
or
- out-of-date but based on public understanding of what is believed to have
worked in the past; or
- focused on easy-to-understand 'projects' rather than the policies required
for systemic solutions. Queensland has had a tradition of focusing on 'major
projects' which (a) reflects the lack of top management skills in its small
business / branch office environment (b) has been a key factor in its economic
under-development and problems in public administration (see
Management Gaps in Queensland). This 'major projects', rather than
systematic policy, focus has extended to the Federal Government through programs
such as Auslink - which essentially
guarantees
that critical problems in developing integrated transport systems will remain
unresolved.
In turn, populist governments apparently tend to rely on 'experts' who
tell them what they want to hear (ie that there are simple solutions). The
politicisation of Public Services in Australia (ie ensuring dominance by
cronies and 'yes men' illustrates this problem (see
The Growing Case for a Professional Public Service; and
Decay of Australian Public Administration).
An attempt to define
a systematic view of the growing phenomenon
of policy populism has been developed by Steve Dovers, while the
chronic weakness of Queensland's political system can realistically be described
in terms of populism resulting from a lack of institutional support.
Some specific examples of insubstantial populism
in recent public policies include:
- the superficial assessment of strategic issues involved in Australia's
commitment to war in Iraq (see below)
- the very poor quality of debate and analysis about the possibility of
a fundamental change to the the central institution of Australia's constitution
in the 'republic' debate. Despite popular support for changing Australia's
head-of-state system. A model was presented to a referendum which did not meet public desired for a 'directly elected' presidential system.
Moreover advocates of that model seemed unable to explain to the electorate
why the popular model would be inconsistent with stability
and effectiveness under Australia's system of government.
Also
a republican model for Australia based on a populist 'directly elected' president
was reportedly advocated by a potential Prime Minister on the grounds that
this was the only way to 'wedge' his political opponents [1];
- methods envisaged to develop Australia's innovation capabilities by increasing
the supply of 'smart' inputs (eg education and research) without seriously
upgrading capabilities to profit from those inputs (see
The Economic Futility of Backing Australia's Ability 2
and
Commentary on Smart State). The application of those policies has
accompanied the rapid decline in Australia's innovation ranking;
- focusing on 'children overboard' or playing the 'racism card' in relation to problems in dealing with unauthorized
migration which involved far more complex issues (see
Complexities in the Refugee Problem);
- the focus on greenhouse gas emissions as the source of climate change
and the assumption that aggressive action to reduce this would have only
minor costs (see Telling the Truth on
Climate Change).
Other examples that have arisen in the context of Australia's 2007 federal
election campaign are cited in
On Populism in 2007. Traditionally
political populism meant that governments could do little good, but the
existence of a professional public service brought ensure that populists'
wild imaginings were subject to a reality check which limited the
damage that could be done . Now unfortunately, politicisation of public
services means that populism can potentially be extremely damaging to the
public interest - as scope has been created for the election of persons who
might be, in effect, mere confidence tricksters.
Finally there are institutional supports
which are required for effective democracy which have not themselves received
adequate support.
In particular:
- the political system is critically dependent on the existence of strong
civil institutions able to provide quality ideas for policy debate, and
on support in policy development and implementation by a competent civil
service. The current relative weakness of civil institutions and public
services in Australia is not only a product of ill-informed efforts to
'reform' universities and public services - but of the tendency of a resource
dependent economy to reward political and business elites who provide
poor leadership (see
Queensland's Weak
Parliament);
- shifts in society towards the 'radical individualism' that apparently
characterized many political activists of the baby boomer generation is
likely to have further eroded effective participation in the civil institutions
on whose contributions the democratic process depends;
- the absence of effective global governance reduces the influence of
nation states relative to the global market by enabling 'jurisdiction
shopping'. Moreover the current global order which is compatible with
Australia's traditional democratic capitalist institutions could fail
under some circumstances (see The Second
Failure of Globalization?);
- apolitical institutions able to accelerate the development of industry
clusters in the general community interest may be essential to build the
economic productivity and tax base required to reverse Australia's traditional
steady decline in relative income levels and protect its democratic traditions.
Attempts to re-engineer governments as just large businesses have arisen
from the assumption (arguably mistaken) that economic competitiveness
and public financing would best be advanced by reducing the size of government
or increasing its efficiency - rather than by developing the effectiveness
of the economy and the tax base (see
Defects in Economic Tactics, Strategy and Outcomes). This
may be a fundamental challenge to the broadly-based representative democracy
which emerged in the UK in the mid 19th century as one means of ensuring
a reasonable sharing of the wealth generated by capital intensive production
in industrial society (see
Economic solutions
appear to be beyond politics);
The core requirement to overcome these challenges
seems likely to involve:
-
better machinery to enable the community generally to
understand policy debates about complex issues;
-
re-creation of competent apolitical Public Services to
support the community's elected representatives;
-
development of apolitical community-based capabilities
to reduce the complexity that elected governments have to deal with to
manageable levels by (say) improving community / economic
support to individuals / enterprises and reducing the need for complex
regulation.
The prospect of providing better institutional support to Australia's
political system is considered further in
Restoring 'Faith in Politics'.
However there is also a need to recognise the
challenge to democratic governance from competing paradigms in East Asia - where a
radically different approach to power is adopted (see below)
|
| Public
Administration |
Weakening
administrative support
For more than a decade Governments have been tending towards ineffectual
or risky populism - a problem which is considered separately in the
Decay of Australian Public Administration.
This partly reflects a decline in the ability of
Public Services to competently support executive governments in policy development
and implementation as a result both of the politicisation / de-skilling of senior
appointments and of attempts to remodel governments as pseudo 'businesses' in
order to hopefully gain better value for money by increasing production efficiency.
National Competition Policy appears to have had a role in weakening administrative
support to government because the side-effects of seeking to apply business-like
methods to fundamentally non-business-like functions were not considered (see
Review of National Competition Policy Reforms: A
Commentary).
The effect has been to remove the steadying wisdom of experience from the
sometimes shallow thinking of political populism. It has also become essentially
impossible to manage the delivery of public goods and services as a whole, because
they involve functions that can not be coordinated satisfactorily through market
mechanisms. The latter problem is illustrated particularly by emerging concerns
about infrastructure deficiencies (see
Infrastructure Constraints on Australia's Economy).
In the process of 'reform' the dominant goal of Public Services also shifted
from helping the public by ensuring good government, to helping the government
of the day to retain political power.
|
| Strategy |
INADEQUATE INTELLIGENCE AND STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT
There is a serious weakness in Australia's ability to assess its national
strategic interests.
This is clearly revealed, for example, by the public debate concerning weapons
of mass destruction (WMD) as the basis for participating in military action
in Iraq in 2003.
An evaluation of the strategic environment related to the problem of
dealing with the risk of terrorists with WMD strongly suggests that the
US's strategic response linked to regime change in Iraq was based on very
complex considerations (eg see speculations in
The Second Failure of Globalization?).
In brief: key issues that apparently needed to be explored
in the background to that situation include:
- the political and economic failure of numerous states, a problem
that has many causes and gives rise threats to neighbours and to
global society;
- the loss of confidence in multilateral action by the US, which
had originally sponsored and long supported that system, and the
emergence of proposals for unilateral US action
However in Australia there appear to be no governmental or independent
institutions able to make and communicate such assessments to the public
- or even to the government (though one observer pointed out that advice
may have come behind the scenes from PM&C, DFAT and Defence Departments
[1])
Prior to Australia's commitment to the campaign in Iraq, the public case
for regime change was based only on its WMD programs - though this issue
was probably only a 'marketing' tool. And even after the event, the
assessment of the case for participation (by a parliamentary committee and
the media) focused only on weaknesses in intelligence about the WMD issue
and those institutions proved entirely incapable of addressing Australia's
strategic interests generally (see
Strategic Assessment).
This is particularly significant in that it appears that the strategy being
pursued by the US administration, whose lead Australia has followed, may
be flawed (again see The Second Failure of
Globalization?).
Another example of apparently inadequate intelligence and strategic
assessment involves the imbalances in the global financial system (see
Structural
Incompatibility Puts Global Growth at Risk) which apparently
closely relate to the challenge that East Asia's neo-Confucian styles of
governance poses to the democratic capitalist style of global order that
Western societies have established in recent centuries (see
East Asia in Competing
Civilizations).
A significant decline in the ability of Australia's overseas representatives
to access and assess information has also been suggested [1],
as has a lack of reliance on systematic professional advice in relation to the
commitment to intervention of Iraq. [1]
It is noteworthy that Daniel Ellsberg showed how intelligence presented to
the US government about the Vietnam war could be distorted to meet political
expectations and then used to justify pre-formed assumptions about desirable
strategic policies [1].
Australia at that time would have been less likely to have been susceptible
to such 'group think' because it had a professional Public Service who could
safely express independent opinions. However politicisation in recent years
has presumably reduced this protection.
The problem of identification
/ protection of the national strategic interest is complicated by exposure to
rising powers in East Asia whose strategic methods and means for exerting power
are radically different to those of Western societies (eg see
below).
|
| Lack of
Asia Literacy |
LACK OF ASIA LITERACY
There is very limited understanding of the challenges to
Australia's system of government that are implicit in the rapid progress
being achieved under neo-Confucian styles of government, as goals and
strategic methods are radically different in societies with an ancient
Chinese heritage, rather than the West's classical Greek heritage (see
East Asia
in Competing Civilizations and 'Asia'
Literacy).
In brief: In East Asia abstract ideas are not regarded as reliable, so
methods for problem solving and managing change have been created that do
not depend on individual rationality or political debate.
For example, power in Asia is equated, not with making decisions as
Australia's political elites expect to do, but with having social
subordinates who make decisions for the powerful.
This is significant because, for
example:
The implications of these challenges is speculated more comprehensively
in China as the 'Future of the
World'?, An
Invisible Clash of Financial Systems?,
Understanding East Asia's
Economic Models , Creating a New International 'Confucian' Economic
and Political Order? and Babes in the Asian
Woods
Very substantial strengthening of support to
Australia's democratic
institutions may be required, if they are to remain viable in such an
environment. |
| Federalism |
Federal - State
Fiscal Imbalances
Australia's federal system concentrates tax powers in the federal government
and responsibility for service delivery in state administrations (including
local government).
This imbalance appears to have come about largely
because over the past 70 years the High Court (which lacks the technical ability
to fully evaluate the economic, public finance or public administration effect
of its decisions - and has always been appointed by Commonwealth ministers)
has concentrated ever increasingly fiscal capacity in the Commonwealth Government
[1].
This imbalance has seriously distorted public administration in Australia
over many decades.
Dubious consequences of this arrangement are:
- there is a problem in accountability and political motivation because
the federal government carries the political cost of raising revenue - while
the states get many political benefits out of spending it. The federal government
is now constantly forced to try to refute accusations of being a high taxing
government (despite the fact that Australians overall tax burden is less
than in many developed countries) because taxes collected on behalf of the
states (eg GST) are labelled as federal taxes. Moreover one observer has
suggested that very rapid growth in state spending has arisen because states
are not responsible for revenue raising [1];
- states, who have responsibility for economic development, have had limited
financial incentive to take development of productive modern economies seriously
- because Commonwealth payments are states' most important revenue sources
and these tend to be distributed 'equitably' irrespective of the weakness
or strength of a state's tax base (see
Comment on Review of Grants Commission
Arrangements and [1]).
This disincentive has probably significantly lowered:
- Australia's overall economic performance (noting that Australia's
per capita GDP had been in more-or-less constant decline relative to international
standards ever since federation - though this trend changed in the 1990s);
- aggregate tax revenues available to Australia's public sector;
- the expansion in special purpose funding (especially in the 1970s) appeared
to reduce the ability of states to perform their functions effectively because
it (a) reduced their ability to make decisions and funding commitments (b)
forced
states to concentrate more on lobbying for federal
approval than on the requirements of their functions
and (c) shifted decision making from those with technical knowledge of what
was required to central intergovernmental-relations and financial staffs.
The overall effect was somewhat like the
effect of tariff protection on corporate managements, or welfare
dependence on the disadvantaged. The weakening of state
administrative capacities may have been a factor in the
decline in public capital investment in the 1980s and 1990s to levels
well below OECD norms - and the consequent backlogs which many observers
now identify (see also
Infrastructure Constraints on Australia's Economy).
- public functions are not always performed effectively because of divided
responsibility and conflicts. For example:
- the federal government finds itself with too much revenue and hands
back its large revenue surplus in the form of tax cuts, while the states
struggle to provide essential services with limited income. [1]
There are increasing signs that these fundamental
defects in the federal system are being recognized - and leading to power
struggles which further debilitate Australia's governance. For example:
- the problem of fiscal imbalance has been analyzed [1];
- disputes have emerged about the financing of state functions - see
below;
- the Commonwealth has adopted a coercive (rather than a cooperative)
approach to Australia's federal system [1,
2,
3] (similar to that of
the Whitlam government in the 1970s?). In particular:
- it has been suggested that the Commonwealth has adopted a highly centralist
approach because it believes that the states (a) are incompetent and (b)
have a role purely as service deliverers - which does not give them any
role in development of policy [1]
- the federal government is seen to be interfering in state areas of responsibility
because it can make no progress in dealing with its own, and can thus avoid
responsibility [1]
- an end to commonwealth / state fighting has been seen as necessary to
allow progress in dealing with key issues [1];
- despite access to GST states have never had worse access to own-source
revenues and community has yet to grasp the significance of this for state
service delivery or state tax reform.[1]
- the incompetence which state governments have demonstrated in performing
their functions has led to community support for their abolition - though
this would be constitutionally impossible and would not actually solve the
problem [1]
- federal prescriptive control over universities has been sought by extreme
interpretation of the 'trading corporations' power, and seems likely to
further reduce the already weak ability of Australia's universities to provide
the substantial contribution to public affairs required for an effective
political process [1];
- proposals have been put forward for a federal government take-over of
responsibility of all health services [1];
- micro-economic reform has been increased national centralization of
regulation. Now national bureaucrats impose penalties on state governments
if they make electorally-endorsed decisions that are seen to be inappropriate.
States have passed over responsibility to get someone to blame when things
go wrong. There would be benefits in diversity - where outcomes would respond
to local circumstances. [1]
- reform of the federal system is seen to be vital to overcoming problems
affecting the health system. [1]
- Federal and state governments increasingly recognize the need for health
systems to be operated by a single level of government [1]
- attempts to erode the federal system have been seen to damage Australia's
constitution which has provided a century of political stability that few
other countries experienced by (a) removing a key balance of power and (b)
preventing regional issues being dealt with mainly by affected regional
communities [1]
- proposals have emerged for changing financial arrangements and rationalizing
functions [1,
2,
3,
4], resulting in no
agreement [1];
- some see solutions to confusion and duplication associated with federal
system to lie in increasing Commonwealth regulatory authority. But it has
shown an equal or greater ability to generate complex systems.[1]
- there is a need to make states accountable by letting them raise their
own revenue [1];
- states have argued that the national competition agreement has been
torn up, while health and education have not been able to be discussed in
COAG [1];
- the establishment of an effective national electricity market is at
risk from intergovernmental tensions [1]
- state's could respond by a High Court challenge in relation to industrial
relations, and by simultaneously re-establishing their own income tax regime
[1]
- states threatened continuance of national agreement assigning corporations
powers to the commonwealth if the Treasurer challenges their access to GST
revenues [1]
- the PM indicated an intention to pursue what he saw as the national
interest - over-riding the states if this was necessary [1]
- the federal government is seen as seeking to destroy the remaining functions
of states - which would not be in its interest as it would then be held
responsible for, and have to deal with, all problems that arise [1]
- the federal government is seen to be ignoring the constitutional limits
on its powers (using its financial dominance) on the grounds that states
are inefficient - yet part of that problem arises from Commonwealth duplication
of their functions [1]
- federal government efforts to take control of ports could create a very
complex regulatory and administrative environment, and disputes with the
states about this would not be in the national interest [1]
- Commonwealth attempts to control everything are seen to be a risk to
the nation as a whole [1]
- Australia's federal system now makes the states helpless - mainly because
of centralized financial power. However this is quite contrary to the intent
of the Constitution and was put in place by decisions of High Court - not
by voters .[1]
- Australia's dysfunctional federal state system needs to be overhauled
- to allow greater integration of the health system. [1]
- the federal system is a blockage to good government, and there is a
need for a summit to decide how power and money should be divided [1]
- highly centralised federal control of state grants was suggested to
potentially result in 'set-up costs' equal to the grant [1]
- NSW treasurer suggested that costs of greying population could create large funding problems
- which required an overhaul of federal / state funding arrangements [1]
- The division of responsibility for health between federal and state governments
was seen as the biggest biggest
obstacle to reforms [1]
- Australia has one of the best systems of government in the
democratic world, and its federal system is worth preserving [1]
- NSW is to host a national summit on ways to reform Australia's
fiscal system - to address report which identified a gap between states'
revenue raising powers and spending responsibilities. [1]
- a High Court decision, related to use of corporations power, appears to allow
the Commonwealth to seek control of virtually anything [1],
which must massively compounds the dysfunctions that have grown in Australia's
system of government as a result initially of the removal of state income tax powers during WWII.
- the federal system was seen to be 'broken' (noting duplication; inefficiency;
unnecessary red
tape; sub-standard services; and conflicts over control). A special constitutional convention
could be the way to fix this [1]
Moreover these distortions may now become unsustainable because of what appears
to be a potential imbalance between aggregate public revenues and expectations
about public spending.
Though this issue has not been systematically
evaluated, reasons to suspect that a problem is emerging in raising revenues
to meet public service expectations include:
- constraints and demands on federal revenues have increased, including:
- disputes have arisen about financing public expectations
in key state functions such as:
- public health services [1,
2]. As a result concern
has been expressed as the result of a Health Care Summit about the effect
of overlapping responsibility on services effectiveness, and about cost-shifting
between different levels of government [1].
An inability to address health system problems because of disputes over
financing has also been identified [1];
- water supplies - where shortages are looming in many localities [1]
;
- tertiary education [1];
- roads [1];
- state taxes [1]
- the federal government (it has been claimed) is seeking to force states
to pay more of the cost of essential services generally [1];
- signs are emerging (in spite of the revenue surge from a property boom)
of a revenue / spending imbalance in the 'growth' state of Queensland which
probably can not be reduced simply by tax rises (see
Growing Pressure for Increased Taxation). NSW appears to
be experiencing the start of a chronic financing problem [1].
And NSW and other major states have found it necessary to express concern
about the revenues they lose because of Commonwealth transfer payments (see
Comment on Review of Grants Commission
Arrangements).
At the same time that these pressures have developed, Commonwealth revenues
have surged into large surpluses as a result of a rapidly growing economy [1]
- a phenomenon which seems unlikely to be sustainable (see
The Potential for Economic Instability).
In the medium to long term, it would appear highly desirable for revenue
capacity to match spending responsibilities of each level of government so as
to reduce the economic, revenue and administrative costs of current imbalances.
One suggestion about this has involved restoring personal income tax power
to states [1]. Others have
suggested that the problem could be resolved if the federal government assumed
responsibility for hospitals (and perhaps other functions) [1,
2].
In any effort to match revenue and spending responsibilities,
preference should probably be given to increasing state
revenue capacity (eg by transferring GST and personal income taxes and perhaps
reinstating death duties) rather than increasing federal operational responsibilities
because:
- while there is little doubt that reported Commonwealth concerns about
state incompetence [1]
are valid (see
The Growing Case
for a Professional Public Service), it needs to be recognized that
centralism is not a solution because:
- the reasons for state incompetence arguably lie in:
- Commonwealth-state fiscal imbalances which (especially since the explosion
of special purpose funding in the 1970s) have made it essentially impossible
for states to really take responsibility for their functions (see
above);
- the elimination of the Westminster tradition of a competent independent
Public Service in the search for 'quick fix' solutions to perceived problems
(eg see Towards Good Government
in Queensland).\
- the Commonwealth adopted similar 'quick fix' concepts for reform of
public administration (especially from 2000 on) and is now well on its way
to achieving the same level of administrative incompetence as the states
(see The Decay of Australian Public Administration);
- Commonwealth administration is centred in Canberra which is
physically isolated and primarily involved in government and other
services which makes it difficult for those who live there to gain 'real
world' information about what is happening.
- there is a requirement for coordination amongst different functions on
a regional basis (see above) which states (as
Australia's de-facto regional administrations) should be best positioned to
address;
- states have responsibility for economic development functions - which
is a primary determinant of the quantity of public finance which is available.
If states lack appropriate financial incentives (because the federal government
ensures equal outcomes no matter what) their approach to economic strategy
may be amateurish (see Comment on Review
of Grants Commission Arrangements);
- community engagement in (and thus understanding of) 'big picture' questions
is vital both to provide an informed electorate, and also to the quality of
leadership that can be provided within the community (see
Queensland's Weak Parliament
and Pauline Hanson's One Nation:
Assessing the Implications for accounts of what can happen when a
community lacks such engagement and understanding). Communities who
are not part of the solution are likely to become the problem (as illustrated
also by welfare dependency concerns);
- proposals that have been advanced for a federal take-over of all health
services seem to contain serious practical defects - which imply that other
alternatives need to be considered to fix obvious difficulties in health services
(see Is a National Health
Model the Best Remedy?).
The dysfunctions associated with Australia's federal system can
probably only be solved by (a) eliminating fiscal imbalances and (b) providing
constitutional structures that oblige state and federal government to collaborate
(eg making the federal Senate a true state house - with members appointed directly
by state governments)
|
| Judiciary |
Political biases in the
Judiciary
The technical competence of the Judiciary is critical to the administration
of law (and to Australia's reputation as a place to do business in particular),
while Judicial independence is vital to safeguard citizens against abuses of
executive power.
Numerous
allegations,
whose validity the author has no way to assess, now suggest that the quality
and legal competence of the Judiciary is being compromised by appointments based
on political rather than merit criteria - in a manner similar to that which
has undermined effective public administration.
|
| Head of
State
|
Politicization of the 'Crown'
Under Australia's current constitution the
Governor General (on behalf of the 'Crown') carries all the power of
executive government, and makes it available for use by the democratically elected
government. The effectiveness of representative democracy has now been
de-stabilized and seriously damaged by politicization of the 'Crown', as:
- a Governor General used the position to advocate a particular political
agenda [1,
2], and continued doing
so after leaving the position [1,
2]. A state governor has
announced an intention to pursue a similar practice [1]
. In 2009 a new Governor General also took a public political position [1]
- the Federal Opposition leader broke the convention which had treated the
Governor General as being outside of the political game [1];
- a Governor General (G-G) resigned in the face of populist pressure involving
allegations, a flawed Church inquiry,
a biased media campaign, opinion polls, a Senate resolution
[1] which also breached constitutional
conventions and a weak Federal Government - pressure which one observer described
as the worst case of 'trial by media' since the case of Lindy Chamberlain
and which ultimately led to a virtual political 'assassination'; and
- similar 'media frenzy' seemed likely to follow any other appointment of
a Governor General - thus discouraging good people from being prepared to
take the position [1]
Ensuring that in future the holder of this office should be a person who
has popular support (or perhaps even has a definite political agenda) seemed
a major motive for the latter campaign [1,
2, 3,
4, 5,
6,
7]. One legal observer implied
that political support was a vital requirement of the position [1].
However politicisation of this position (ie requiring popular support, and
a political agenda and networks) is totally incompatible with Australia's existing
constitutional system [1,
2] and would lead to instability
unless preceded by a referendum to appropriately change
the constitution. Even thoughtlessly subjecting this institution to populist
pressure has damaged Australia's system of government.
Constitution Origins
Australia's constitution was derived at the start of the 20th century from
the system of governance that existed in Britain at that time.
That system was the product of a long period of evolution whereby the power
and privileges which monarchs had acquired through through military leadership
were shared first with a military 'nobility' and ultimately, in the mid 19th
century, with the broad mass of the community through a system of representative
democracy.
This steady transfer of power from military to civil authorities involved
the emergence of a constitutional monarchy under which eventually:
- the Crown delegated power to make laws to an elected Parliament, and the
power to interpret the law in civil, criminal and administrative matters to
an independent Judiciary;
- an executive government was formed by the party with the majority support
of a democratically elected Parliament;
- the Crown retained all the executive power of the state, but agreed not
to use this for their own purposes and to act on advice from the head of the
government; and
- the Crown oversaw the government's day-to-day actions to ensure that they
complied with the constitution.
In Australia's version of this system the British 'Crown' was represented
by a Governor General (or Governor in the case of the states).
Apart from ceremonially 'planting trees', the role which the G-G used to
play was to enable the democratically elected government to govern by exercising
the same restraint in the use of executive power as the British Crown.
Putting Political Stability at Risk
A G-G who has their own political power base and agenda will either be a
political supporter of the elected government or an opponent.
If they are an opponent then they may make it difficult at the very
least for the elected government to govern [1].
It can be noted that the Constitution allocates all executive power to the
Governor General and does not even mention the Prime Minister. Those powers
include vetoing legislation. With an independent political mandate a Governor
General would be able to oppose the will of Parliament and claim that they
were acting in the people's interests in doing so [1]
The constitutional crises that are likely to emerge where an elected
head of state had their own political agenda, power base and electoral
mandate can be illustrated by the 1975 sacking of the Whitlam Government
by the then Governor General. Whilst the Governor General was presumably
acting to resolve what was seen as a constitutional crisis related to the
blocking of supply, the fact is that the 'sacking' was: (a)
political popular - as illustrated by the large subsequent voter
preference for a change in government; and (b) widely seen itself as a
constitutional crisis.
With a popularly elected Head of State, conflicts between the latter
and the also-elected but-less-powerful government would presumably be a
regular event, and shatter Australia's reputation for political stability.
On the other hand, if they are of the same political persuasion, then the
scope for autocratic power to emerge will be huge as:
- the same faction would have control of the legislature, the executive
government and the reserve powers of the 'Crown' (which could be interpreted
as being almost unlimited); and
- the judiciary, whose independent powers are delegated from the Crown,
might have limited ability to act as a counterbalancing force.
The author recalls a paper (but can no longer locate it) which argued out
that countries who had political head of states separate from governments
tended to have periodic revolutions.
A Vice Regal Assassination?
The political 'assassination' of an incumbent G-G has undermined and exposed
the rickety foundations of the institutional core of Australia's constitution
(and this may well have been the intention of the campaign) - but has not shown
how to create a solid foundation. It seem certain to impact on whether Australia
emerges as a future republic. It might
result in either:
- future G-Gs who have their own popular / political agendas - and thus
contribute to political instability until a re-written Australian constitution
is approved at a referendum (see below); or
- damage to the republican goal of making
the position of Governor General into one that requires popular support -
if the attacks on Peter Hollingworth as G-G are eventually shown to have been
unjust thus demonstrating that (a) popular opinion can
be misled especially if the subject is not an experienced politician and (b)
any experienced politician could be unable to provide the apolitical attitude
the Governor General's constitutional role requires.
Practical Options
Presumably Australia could seek to have an elected
G-G who has a political agenda, but for stability and to protect against autocratic
power it would then seem desirable to rearrange a large number of other aspects
of the constitution - perhaps to something like the US system where the executive
and the head of state are combined but separated from the legislature.
Implications? Adopting a US style system in Australia would seem
likely to:
- increases the intensity and sophistication of political debate because
both the executive and legislature would presumably be well resourced
to support policy research - which would seem highly desirable given the
deplorable standards that have emerged as administrative
machinery has been politicized; and
- encourage a much 'smaller' role for governments - because (a) under
British Law the state does not seek to represent the community as a whole
as in European (Roman) Law traditions and (b) the separation of executive
and legislature would inhibit the coordination required for governments
to play a strong interventionist role.
Interestingly it appears that Prince Charles as king might guarantee
Australia's transition to a republic because his reported desire to speak
out about public policy issues - rather than continuing the traditional
practice of doing so only in private [1]
- would seem very likely to destroy the apolitical character of the British
monarchy and thus its constitutional usefulness in the UK and elsewhere.
|
| Foundations
of Liberty
|
Moral foundations
of individual liberty
For something like 1000 years in Western societies, a 'put-others-first'
ethical ideal which derived from Christ-ian traditions has seemed to be a settled
basis for a morality driven by individual consciences.
This allowed a separation between affairs of state and the religious basis
of that individual morality. That separation was immensely important to building
a legal system which incorporated individual liberty and thus to the economic
prosperity and strength which Western societies achieved relative to others
particularly over the past 500 years (see
Competing Civilizations).
The latter argued that:
- individual liberty could became the core
of Australia's antecedent legal system in Britain, because it was taken as
given that interpersonal relations would be guided by a Christ-ian 'put-others-first'
ethical ideal that was deeply embedded in the consciences of individuals responsible
to God;
- in societies without this 'embedded'
ethical ideal, legal and governance systems invariably are deeply involved
in determining the nature of, and enforcing, moral interpersonal relationships
- and this has a major impact on scope for political liberty and the economic
models that can be used, Moreover;
-
government can be far more
effective in dealing with complex and constantly changing social and
economic systems, when it does not seek to do so simply on the basis of
religious principles that are meant to apply to individual behaviour.
Evidence
It now appears that challenges
to the 'Christ-ian' philosophical and theological foundations of Western societies
have weakened the embedded ethical ideal in Australia to the point that it can
no longer provide the foundation of moral interpersonal relations and thus a
system of law and government based on individual liberty. This could be the
case if child sexual abuse is anywhere near as rampant within the community
as some have alleged (see About Child Sex Abuse).
The breakdown of up to 50% of marriages (which in itself can be a form of child
'abuse' because of the stresses it may create, and which seems to have created
the basis for the escalation of sexual abuse) as well as various other indicators
of social dysfunction can also be noted.
Indicators of the decay of an ingrained put-other-first ethical ideal
include:
- self-centeredness as the defining characteristic of the (so-called)
‘me’ generation (the 'Baby boomers');
- narcissistic (self-love) personality traits are increasing. 25% of
students revealed such traits strongly in 2006 (up from 15% in 1982).
80% of people thought they were important in 1980s compared with 12%
in 1952. An epidemic of poor parenting is seen as the cause [1]
- virtual freedom from family responsibilities which men have had the
potential to enjoy since the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s
- a freedom which now appears to be translating into (a) poor educational
achievements by boys who lack of male role-models [1]
and (b) low fertility rates as women find it increasingly difficult to
find a man willing to commit to parenthood [1];
- emphasis on self-fulfilment, sometimes including veneration of self
as a fragment of the divine (which seem to be the core of 'New Age' and
growing (pseudo) Buddhist traditions);
- a perceived inability to make moral judgments [1]
- Morality? What were once seven deadly sins (that led to spiritual
death and damnation) - namely lust, gluttony, avarice, sloth, anger,
envy and pride - have all become behavioural problems requiring treatment,
not punishment, except for pride that has become a virtue (as an antidote
to the sense of low self-esteem that is seen as the source of many social
and psychological problems). And what were once virtues (humility, kindness,
abstinence, chastity, patience, liberality, diligence) are now also
seen as requiring correction through counseling (Furedi F., 'The seven
deadly ills', Australian, 2-3/2/02)
- escalating drug abuse apparently expressing a desire to 'escape' from
a unhappy lives [1];
- weakening of ethics in:
- business [1] - which (a)
erodes public confidence in commercial institutions that are essential
to economic productivity (b) undermines the status that professionals
gained by the ideal of putting community interests before one's own
and (c) and requires significantly more complex and costly accountability
procedures;
- government - associated with increasingly lying [1]
- the breakdown of organized civil society (see
Social capital);
- the emergence of
dysfunctional interpersonal relationships (including:
- deterioration in community health associated with increased obesity,
because children's outdoor activities are constrained by fear of strangers
[1]
- Both Prime Minister and leader of the Opposition have expressed concern
about the social consequences of changes in Australian values and culture
[1]
Part of the social breakdown mentioned above (eg child abuse) is overly
associated with disadvantaged communities (eg those suffering high unemployment,
low education etc) [1].
However:
- the existence of a correlation between social breakdown and disadvantage
does not show what has caused the correlation - though a key requirement
for overcoming disadvantage for individuals is probably that they gain
stronger support from responsible family and community members (see
Commentary
on Is the Smart State a Just State?).
- some indicators of social breakdown (eg in family relationships) are
more widespread than serious social disadvantage;
- changes in attitudes which are likely to contribute have occurred,
and the apparent scale of the social breakdown does not support the view
that disadvantage is the major cause;
Part of the social stresses identified are also undoubtedly associated
with pressure for harder work [3]
- while it has also been suggested that the major cause lies in the failure
of men to take on a larger share of household tasks as women have gained
equality, and increasingly participate in the workforce [1]
Others have attempted to explain changes in the nature of relationships
and the growth of 'rampant individualism' in terms of various consequences
of globalization [1].
Others again have suggested that the worst of the problems are over
and the situation is improving as a result of general economic
prosperity [1]
Restraining Liberty
Unless a 'put-others-first' ethical ideal is re-established through religion
which is separate from the state, entirely new concepts of law and government
may be developed which regulate the nature of 'moral' interpersonal relations.
Indicators of the growth of, and pressure for, 'social / ethical' regulation
include:
- the blurring of the line between individual and state responsibilities,
and the predicted future increase in the use of formal agreements about
behaviour that could be required in various circumstances (eg as has been
done with indigenous communities) [1]
- political activism by church-based organizations [1],
or by individual Christians [1];
-
the reported loss of public interest in substantive policy issues - with
concern only for personal impacts and whether politicians reflect their values [1];
-
defining a set of moral standards
for politicians by setting down a code of conduct [1];
- a perceived need to insert 'values' into public debates [1],
and for the Deputy prime Minister to himself stress moral values [1].
And the ALP was said to believe that politics in future would be concerned
solely with values - without concern for traditional political debates
about programs and budgets [1];
- Comment: Determining 'values' through political authorities
would break the separation of church and state
- the perceived intent of an ALP leader to build an election
campaign on religious values [1];
- proposals for state funding of chaplains in schools [1];
- 'antidiscrimination' legislation which suppresses the free expression
of some ideas [1]
or protects some behavioral choices that are traditionally seen as immoral,
and lead to (sometimes quite unforeseen) social dysfunctions [1];
- the expressed concern that churches do not recognize professionally
derived ethics, but have treated them as part of universal moral principles
[1]. [An aside:
The significance of 'professionally' derived ethics from the viewpoint
of the churches (ie of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good
and evil) is presumably embodied in Genesis 2-3];
- research by the Australian Computer Society into ethical standards
that should be adopted in that industry [1];
- a political debate about the values
taught in state schools, and in particular:
- a stream of initiatives by government in the UK aimed at improving
people's behaviour [1];
- ALP proposals for government machinery for micro-supervision of
the fairness of employee-employer relationships (see
Fair Work
Australia: Establishing the Machinery of a Socialist State?);
- a perceived need for a Statement of National Values (focused on: democracy;
equality of all people; religious tolerance; rule of law; mate-ship) [1]
- advocacy of a Bill of Rights [1]
as a means to establish moral rights [1]
or national values [1],
or because it can no longer be assumed that elected representatives will
act in the general community interest [1].
Victoria is to follow ACT in establishing a statutory charter of rights
and responsibilities [1]
- Comment: advocacy of a Bill / Charter of Rights
seems very strong evidence that authorities have felt the need to
constrain individual behaviour. However in practice a Bill of Rights
would seem likely to compound those constraints by limiting rights in future to those which are prescribed.
Traditionally under common law individuals have been able to do what
is not prohibited, but a Bill of Rights would seem to reverse this
presumption or freedom and guarantee only the right to do what is
specifically permitted. When an issue arises in future that no one
has previously considered, it would reasonably be argued that the
right did not exist because it was not mentioned in the Bill of
Rights
- the establishment of Family Law, the Family Court and the Child Support
Agency to enforce child support. In some respects the latter has
raised the cost of 'free' love to a very high level.
- Family law, it may also be noted, has been seen as a source of many
problems [1],
and (in Queensland at least) the
Families
Department seems to experience considerable difficulties. Moreover
the cost of child support (combined with the high incidence of family
breakdown) seems likely to act as a real disincentive to marriage and
parenthood - at an inconvenient time for an aging population;
- legal action against institutions for the sexual misdeeds of their
staff [1]
- which creates a requirement for managements to try to control interpersonal
relationships;
- checks on teachers in relation to child abuse - a practice which was
seen as likely to be inadequate [1]
- the suggested creation of special courts or other arrangements to
deal with sexual abuse of children [1,
2] - which mainly occurs when children
live with adults who are not their biological parents;
- arguments by both state and commonwealth governments that the other
needs to take responsibility for dealing with the massive problem of child
sex abuse [1];
- the perceived need for:
- the introduction of shared responsibility agreements designed to influence
the actions of aboriginal parents [1]
- the introduction of legislation to protect the disabled from abusive
carers [1];
- the creation in Queensland of machinery to 'keep government honest'
in the era following the 1980s' Fitzgerald inquiry which:
- was described by one expert observer as creating the most complex
system of government in the Western world [1];
and
- was seen 15 years later to require scaling back because the resulting
'red tape' made government ineffective [1]
There has also been:
- a suggestion that a breakdown in civil society due to loss of
trust is interfering with the effectiveness of economic transactions,
and that this might need to be resolved by the churches [1].
- recognition by Christian leaders of the effects on Australia's values
and institutions if its religious foundations are shifted [1]
Consequences?
The effect of a perceived need to apply external constraints to most aspects
of individual behaviour would be to eliminate the liberty that has been central
to past legal and political systems and to the economic success that has been
enjoyed. Moreover externally driven morality (by moral legalism or social sanctions)
does not seem very effective.
A Chinese writer (whose work the author can no longer locate) commented
on the difference between doing the right thing when others were watching
- or all of the time when conscience was the guide. Islamic legalism seems
to require threats of horrendous punishment.
New testament writers commented on the fact that 'no one could ever live
under the Mosaic law'. In earlier eras, blood sacrifice was one 'solution'
that was found to the failure of moral legalism to prevent what leaders
saw as rampant sin in a nation. Knowing how widely the moral law was abused,
but powerless to do anything about it, community leaders could show how
seriously they viewed the problem by arranging to sacrifice an innocent
scapegoat. An interesting parallel may be drawn with the official blind
eye that was turned to the problem of child sexual abuse in Australian families
and the political 'assassination' of the G-G in 2003.
The erosion of the moral foundations of individual liberty is also a threat
to national security because of the risks associated with possible terrorist
attacks by Islamist extremists. This arises because making a convincing case
for civil liberties in Muslim dominated countries is (probably) the key to defeating
the ideology of the spiritual leaders who motivate militants to commit acts
of terror - yet the social symptoms which have resulted from the loss of the
ethical basis for moral interpersonal relations is a major obstacle to the credibility
of any such case (see
Combating
Terrorism with Civil Liberties)
|
| Press |
Abuse of the power of the
press
The power of the press appears to have been seriously abused in ways which
have adverse implications for Australia's constitutional stability by:
- covering up the extent and implications of child sexual abuse (see
About Child Sex Abuse) which, as noted
above, implies a breakdown in the moral foundations which
are vital for a legal and governmental system which assumes individual liberty.
In this cover-up the media has been abetted by many community leaders who
are also seem afraid to face up to the problem;
- a biased media campaign was conducted
against the holder of the office of Governor General (which as noted
above has contributed to instability in Australia's system
of government by politicisation of that position).
This is not to suggest that the media generally have not acted in good faith
because (a) it is possible to make errors while acting in good faith; (b) over
many years the author has observed that the media will seem to be biased at
any particular time - but that the direction of their bias varies; and
(c) the public sometimes reacts against 'elites' who they suspect of trying
to manipulate them.
|