Should the Australian States Be Abolished - Case Study Example

Should the Australian States be abolished? Name of the Student: Name of the Instructor: Name of the course: Code of the course: Submission date: Should the Australian States be abolished? Introduction It is an apparent fact that the question of whether the state governments should be abolished in Australia has been ongoing for a long time. This has been happening in a country where there is generic consensus in the public sphere that Australia has for a long time been over-governed which is added to the fact that it has a three level structure which has been perceived as being wasteful and cumbersome. This fact is supported by diverse academicians and practitioners like Patience (2012, p. 1) who cited that it has become evident that the old state system in Australia which was structured in the 19th C is simply not in a position to deal with the wide alley of challenges which are confronting Australia in the 21st Century. These scholars have thus inferred that confronting these challenges necessitates national institutions which have the capability of affording swift and efficient response to different events like climate change, global financial slump, threats from potential enemies as well as human security within and outside the Australian borders. Nonetheless, proponents of the current system in Australia who are opposed to the abolition debate argue that states are fundamental in running essential systems like public transport, child protection and police service and turning these responsibilities to a centric system will not translate to increased efficiency or minimal mismanagement. Additionally, these proponents have argued that the states in Australia have been core to behavior change and cited the undertakings by the Cain government in Victoria in curbing smoking as well as the efforts by the states to restrain the road toll and execute random breath testing to eradicate drunk driving (Maher, 2013, p. 1). It is against these conflicting schools of thought this paper attempts to explore the discourse on whether the Australian States be abolished. The first section will analyze the discourse favoring the abolition of the state governments in Australia while the latter section will briefly explore the arguments against this shift in the Australian governance system. Argument It is worth noting that the proponents of the establishment of a two-tiered system of governance in Australia encompassing the central and regional governments have proposed different number of regions in the country. This is best exemplified by Turner (1999, p. 210), Hall (1998, p. 36) and Hurford (2004, p. 47) who proposed 25, 30-50 and 51 regions respectively. There are several demerits of the present three-tiered systems of governance in Australia which have been proposed by the above proponents of the two-tiered system among others who support the abolition of the Australian states. Some of these arguments are explored in the subsequent analysis. Firstly, it is imperative to note that the current system of governance in Australia which is founded on states structure has culminated in over-governance of the electorates and in most cases overlapping of responsibilities between the structures of government. This fact is best epitomized by Kerin (2007, p. 1) who determined that Australians live in one of the most over-governed nations on the globe. This reality became apparent after the estimations that Australia has one politician per 930 electors when it is juxtaposed with Britain which has one politician per 22,000 electors. In this case, the Australian three-tiered federation takes 700 governments (one national, two territories, six states and 691 local), coupled with an estimated 22,600 politicians to serve a small population of 21 million citizens. Additionally, there has been revealed to be counterproductive and needless overlap mostly in the federal and state levels. This is best epitomized by a phenomenon where there are federal and state ministers in multiple portfolios which include but not limited to health and education. Subsequently, there is inadequate clarity on responsibilities which generate insufficient accountability and at the same time promote dysfunctional behaviors which include shifting of blame and costs (Kerin, 2007, p. 1). In this case, the current system of governance in Australia has been perceived by diverse individuals and collectives as being in a state of flux, and there have been different challenges on its relevance in the contemporary globalized world. This reality can be viewed to have resulted in a symposium in Australia entitled ‘Federalism and Regionalism in Australia: New Approaches, New Institutions’. This symposium culminated in a large consensus among the attendants that the traditional institutional frameworks based on states are rapidly changing which has resulted in a quest for forms of governance which are more adaptive, legitimate, effective and efficient (Brown & Bellamy, 2007, p. 3). This can only be achieved through the abolishment of the states in Australia and replacing them with smaller regional governments, for instance, provinces which are all under one federal government which will be key in the attainment of all the above goals. Secondly, the state system of governance in Australia has been linked with excessive waste of money. While writing in the Australian Journal of Public Administration in 2002, Mark Drummond from the University of Canberra inferred that the abolishment of the states and a shift towards a two-tiered national-local system (with the larger federal government assuming all the state functions) would be instrumental in saving over $20 billion in public expenditure in annual basis (Kerin, 2007, p. 1). The above fact is also fortified by Birnbauer (2006, p. 1) who cited that the abolishment of the state governments would be imperative in ridding the nation of a burdensome bureaucracy which is costing the Australian taxpayers and approximated $30 billion per year. In this case, the has been a generic sentiment in the public domain that citizens would like to get rid of this system with ninety percent of respondents in a unique survey of state public servants stating their wish for the change of the current system while two thirds expressing that they would prefer a two-tier system which is less unwieldy. Similar sentiments have also been expressed by ordinary Australians with more than 50 percent of them believing that the states ought to be replaced with regional governments. Therefore, this diminishing confidence in the state governments by the ordinary Australians as well as the state public servants sampled in the above surveys can be perceive to point to what George Williams, a constitutional lawyer in Australia terms as ‘a crisis of confidence in state governments’ (Steketee, 2010, p. 1). Thirdly, the state governments in the Australian set-up have been accused of pursuing narrow interest, derailing the advancement of the larger Australian economy all of which are detrimental to both the reputation as well as wellbeing of Australia. This fact is revealed by Patience (2012, p. 1) who inferred that for Australia to become a middle power which is globally respected, there is the necessity to streamline the national government which is core in projecting sound political values, a progressively cosmopolitan culture and a foreign policy outreach which is endowed with both international legitimacy as well as regional appeal. This is founded on the backdrop that the state governments are in constant pursue of parochial interests and issues which deviate from the above necessities at a massive costs the Australian reputation and eventually to the wellbeing of the country. Nonetheless, the current governance system in Australia entails a federation of states which is founded on the fact that each state is autonomous (Putland, 2001, p. 1). This phenomenon culminates in a situation whereby there is limited national identity and goals in Australia as a country as each state seeks to pursue distinct and rarely similar interests and issues. In this case, the abolition of the state governments would be key in forging a strong national identity which enjoys both regional and international legitimacy. The importance of this tenet is also supported by Tanner (cited in Lennon, 1999, p. 1) who determined that central to the need for Australia becoming an open state is the fundamental necessity to establish a national identity which can only be forged by a central government. Counter-argument There have been several arguments which have been forwarded against the abolition of the states in Australia and establishment of different number of regions as proposed by different proponents previously mentioned. According to Twomey and Withers (2007, p. 44), the abolishment of the states in Australia in favor of a two-tiered system of central and regional governments would culminate in the shift of control and power away from the people. This fact is also supported by Sherington (2013, p. 1) who determined that one of the problems which is associated with the creation of a two-tiered system of central and regional governments is that this system will alienate the closeness of the people to the government. This is whereby through the process of pushing the local government into regional government, the local issues will not be treated by the people who have extensive knowledge of the local community. This phenomenon is best exemplified whereby the people from Narrabri and Tamworth could find the decisions about their local parks, libraries as well as sporting facilities being made by regional bodies in Armidale as opposed being made by the people who constitute their local community. Additionally, decisions about hospitals and schools would be made by the central government based in Canberra based on the infeasibility of running 30 to 50 health or educational systems (Twomey & Withers, 2007, p. 44). Nonetheless, the above sentiments is addressed by Drummond (2001, p. 1) who inferred that these designated regions which are served by the regional governments could be in a position of forming regional administrative districts for national government responsibilities in health, education, law and order and environment among others. In this case, these administrative districts could ideally work if they are geographically structured and tailored to the specific functional needs of the local community. Conclusion The above analysis has evidenced that the question of whether the state governments should be abolished in Australia has been ongoing in the recent decades. This has produced two distinct schools of thought, with one advocating for the abolition of the state governments while another opposes this view. This paper has evidenced that most of the proponents of abolition cite the over-governance of Australia, wastage of money, lack of accountability and insufficient national identity as some of the most prudent factors influencing the need for the abolishment of the state system in Australia. However, the later part of this review has revealed opponents of the proposed abolition as citing the alienation of the people from the government structures as one of the rationales why the state governments ought not to be abolished. Nonetheless, it is the general feeling in this paper that the states should be abolished and replaced with smaller regional governments such as provinces, all under one federal government. References Birnbauer, W., 2006, ‘ ‘Crazy’ state system costing us billions’, retrieved 7th May, 2013, < http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/crazy-state-system-costing-us-billions/2006/08/05/1154198378593.html>. Brown, AJ. & Bellamy, JA. 2007, Federalism and Regionalism in Australia: New Approaches, New Institutions?., ANU E Press, Canberra. Drummond, M., 2001, ‘Towards a best-possible new system of government’, retrieved 7th May, 2013, < http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=922&page=0>. Hall, R., 1998., Abolish the States! Pan Macmillan, Sydney. Hurford, C., 2004., ‘A republican federation of regions: Re-forming a wastefully governed Australia’ in W, Hudson & AJ Brown (eds.), Restructuring Australia, Federation Press, Sydney, p. 1-50 Kerin, P., 2007, ‘Abolishing state govs would save $30bn’, The Australian, 28th August, Life with a Plus, p. 1. Lennon, M., 1999, ‘Opening Tanner's Australia’, retrieved 7th May, 2013, . Maher, S., 2013, ‘Why we need state governments in Australia’, The Australian, 05 January, Opinion, p. 1. Patience, A., 2012, ‘State governments are a waste of money. Get rid of them’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 20th December, p. 1. Putland, G., 2001, ‘Why Australia's states are doomed’, retrieved 7th May, 2013, < http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=919>. Sherington, G., 2013, ‘Should we abolish the States?’, retrieved 7th May, 2013, < http://sydney.edu.au/news/law/436.html?newsstoryid=10991>. Steketee, M., 2010, ‘Rising support to abolish state governments’, The Australian, 10th April, p. 1. Tanner, L., 1999., Open Australia, Pluto Press, North Melbourne. Twomey, A. & Withers, G., 2007, ‘Federalist paper 1 Australia’s federal future: Delivering growth and prosperity’, report to the Council for the Australian Federation, CAF, East Melbourne. Read More