HANSARD EXTRACT
| Grievance
Debate: Federalism |
| 16 October 2006 |
Mr HAYES
(Werriwa)
(6.00
p.m.)—The
recent foray of the Minister for Education, Science and Training
into the development of a national curriculum once again sparked the
debate about federalism and the modern role of the Commonwealth
government in areas ordinarily considered to be the primary
responsibility of the states and territories. This is not the first
time that members of this government have decided it is okay to
extend their reach beyond their traditional areas of public policy.
In fact, extending beyond the boundaries of the responsibilities of
the Commonwealth has become a default position for many members
opposite, particularly, as I see it, those in
New South Wales.
It seems to me that whenever a
New South Wales
coalition member gets into political hot water or is less than
enthusiastic about promoting the decisions of their own government
they grab for any policy area and try to launch an attack on state
or local governments.
You need only to look at some of the suburban newspapers,
particularly in the south-west and the outer metropolitan areas of
Sydney, in the weeks following a tough week for this government. You
invariably find articles in which federal Liberal members attack the
New South Wales government or their local council over one thing or
another. They just cannot help themselves. I think you will find
that after this week the same thing will replicate itself in local
newspapers. When asked about their views and the concerns of their
constituents when it comes to the government’s extreme industrial
relations laws, they quickly respond by criticising state
governments for holding back employment growth, an attack that any
reasonable person would simply know is just not true. This is just a
diversion.
When it comes to overreacting on state issues, the actions of this
government are, I have to say, second to none. This government has
systematically set about introducing programs that allow members to
inject themselves into state debates and areas of state or local
government responsibilities. I will take you through a few of those.
For instance, there is the Investing in our Schools program, a
program aimed, quite frankly, at nothing more than handing out
cheques to local schools. It is a requirement that any opening
ceremony of capital works that have been funded must be conducted by
a coalition member. That ensures two media hits. While the spending
is welcome, it is widely acknowledged by local school communities
that the deeper agenda for this program is allowing coalition
members to sprout about how much the federal government is investing
in capital works in schools and using it to look good on education
spending, while it cuts money from the education budget at every
other opportunity. There is no point in reminding you, Mr Deputy
Speaker, that when this government came to power it cut eight per
cent in real terms from education budgets. It is quite clear that
this is less than a covert attempt to prop up the poor cousins that
the Liberal Party has in oppositions in every state and territory
around this country.
Then we come to the flagpoles program, which is nothing more than
another photo opportunity for coalition members. It is a requirement
under this government that a coalition member be in attendance for
the dedication of a flagpole, notwithstanding the fact that it may
not have been in their electorate. We could go on. There is the
Australian technical colleges program—the poor cousin of the state
TAFE system, no doubt, but it allows for government members to say
that they support technical education while trying to cut funding to
state governments in relation to technical and further education. So
much for their commitment to the skills shortage, although I do know
that
Mr Hockey did not see that there was a skills shortage the other
day.
Road funding is also used by the federal government, using the power
of the almighty dollar, to force other levels of government to
undertake expenditure by holding the funding gun at their heads. I
have had direct experience with seeing what the government has done
with its road funding in my electorate. The federal government
forced the Campbelltown City Council to introduce a special funding
levy for the Hume Highway on and off ramps at Ingleburn, simply
because it paid only two-thirds of the construction cost. The ramps
connect a very important part of business to a national highway. The
federal government has always conceded that the
Hume was its responsibility; nevertheless it forced the council to
raise a special funding levy on local businesses. If they had not
done that, the alternative was that these ramps would not have been
built at all. When the federal government was criticised by the
mayor for its approach to road funding, the member for Macarthur
responded on behalf of the government by saying:
They’re embarrassing. I work hard to get funding and when I do ...
they can’t get anything done.
When the very same member was asked to get full funding for the
Ingleburn on and off ramps, his response was to blame the state
government. The
Hume is not a state funded road. This is a federally funded road,
one that this government has total responsibility for but for which
this government wanted to blame the state government.
I find it interesting that, whenever there is a question about the
adequacy—or rather the inadequacy—of federal government
infrastructure spending, suddenly it becomes the fault of the states
or territories. Once again the approach of this government is to
accept the accolades when it is good news but blame the bad news on
somebody else, whether it be the states, councils, the Reserve Bank,
in terms of interest rates, or whoever.
The member for
Macarthur is not alone when it comes to using the state government
or local council to deflect attention. Other serial offenders
include the member for Lindsay, the member for Macquarie, the member
for Dobell, the member for
Wentworth
and the member for
Paterson. They have made it almost a pattern of behaviour to deflect
criticism from their handling of their responsibilities for local,
electoral and federal issues by initiating issues against other
areas of government.
The single greatest contributing factor to the problems of state and
federal relations is the vertical fiscal imbalance. It is not a new
problem but it is one that clearly so many members opposite are just
completely unaware of. While members opposite attack state
governments or, in the most extreme cases, their local councils,
they stop short of calling on their federal colleagues to loosen the
purse strings. Members talk tough in their local media yet they must
be like mice when they get to the party room. At the core of their
desire is their own political longevity. Naturally, when attacked
about the lack of action on the part of the Commonwealth, their
rapid response is that everyone should be working together,
conveniently forgetting their previous contributions to local public
policy debates.
The Treasurer has recently complained that the current state of play
means that the Commonwealth writes a cheque and hopes that things
get done. The Treasurer may criticise this approach but it seems to
be the preferred approach of most of his coalition colleagues,
provided it allows for media opportunities. This just builds further
foundations, quite frankly, for deteriorating state and federal
funding relationships. When making funding decisions, it seems that
little consideration is given to the performance of local community
groups and little recognition is given to the need for consistency.
Rather, consideration is given to the media opportunities that
funding may present for the local coalition member. To simply defer
funds or wind up funds for one project to initiate the replacement
in another allows local coalition members the opportunity to trot
out the cheque and claim that this is a new initiative. Changing the
organisation, which is often highly detrimental to those dependent
on the service, presents another photo opportunity, and that is what
this is all about.
Probably the most succinct summary of the approach of this
government to governing was given by the member for
Macarthur recently. While comments were made in respect of the
proposed Badgerys Creek airport, the member for
Macarthur
told the Penrith Press on 7 July:
We’re in government to govern, but no one’s prepared to make a
decision. What I’m interested in is facts and good policy decisions,
and we’re not getting that at the moment.
I could not agree with the member for
Macarthur more. (Time expired)
Return
to Speeches Menu.
