NSW Premier Bob Carr and Queensland Premier Wayne Goss have recycled the regular calls from state premiers for an overhaul of the federal system, including moves to make the Senate more relevant and changes to federal-state financial relations.
On financial relations the states have shown a foolish reluctance to take up income tax which they were forced to abandon in World War II. Their idea of reform usually involves more money from the Federal Government with no electoral accountability for levying it. Without an independent tax base, the states’ power will inevitably wane further.
Mr Carr and Mr Goss have also proposed an all-states Royal commission into the role of the Senate. However, a Royal commission is not the right vehicle for such an inquiry and an all-states inquiry that excludes the Commonwealth less so. A constitutional convention would be more appropriate, but Mr Carr cannot be seen to be supporting anything Federal Opposition Leader John Howard favours. Instead he followed the lead of Prime Minister Paul Keating in looking to the German model. This model conveniently gives greater representation in the Upper House to more populous states, whereas the present Australian Senate gives equal representation to each state. Moreover, the German model has representatives selected by state administrations. So we can see Mr Carr’s call for reform is tainted by a desire for more power for NSW and for the NSW Government.
It is true, as Mr Carr says, that the Senate long ago ceased to be a states’ house in the way envisaged by politicians of the 1890s, if it ever was. However, it certainly has proved useful as a house of review, particularly since its committees became more effective in the early 1970s. It is difficult to see how it could ever be a purely states house. Politics in Australia these days seems far more divided along party and ideological lines than geographic ones. Even if senators were selected directly by state governments, it is likely, once they got to Canberra, they would see themselves more as Labor or Liberal than as Victorian or Tasmanian.
Even so there is still room for reform. Given the Senate’s review role, there is a case for not having any Ministers selected from the Senate. There is also a clear need for an examination of the Senate’s power over money Bills. There is a good argument for saying it should not be able to amend, originate or reject money or appropriation Bills and that the Government (including its fiscal policy) should be determined solely in the House. In turn the House (and thus the Executive) might surrender some of its power by aligning its elections with the Senate _ having a fixed three-year term.
The essential trouble is not the generation of sensible ideas to make the federation work better. Rather it is getting them put to referendum by the Federal Government _ which has de-facto control over the questions. History shows Federal Governments usually put up questions that literally demand a No vote _ unlike questions asked recently in state and territory referendums.
Mr Carr and Mr Goss need to deal with that issue, perhaps by suggesting that the states or the people directly can get questions to a Federal constitutional referendum. Otherwise, their calls for eform will bear no fruit.