CHECK AGAINSTl EMBARGOED UNTIL DLVR
TOWARDS A CLOSER PARTNERSHIP
SPEECH BY THE PRIME MINISTER
NATIONAL PRESS CLUB 19 JULY 1990
It is now one hundred years since the beginning of the
process which led to the creation of the Commonwealth of
Australia in Barton's phrase, a nation for a continent, a
continent for a nation.
The Federal compact hammered out through the 1890s resolved
the competing claims of six distinct political communities,
their capitals and centres of population separated by
immense distances. It's easy to forget that our political
union was never a foregone conclusion. It involved give and
take, a capacity for compromise; and in the end, it was a
triumph of hard work, common purpose and political
leadership. Today we face together challenges impossible to envisage a
century ago. But the same qualities the work, the will,
the leadership which were needed to create the Federation
in the last decade of the nineteenth century are needed
again, in the last decade of the twentieth century, to make
the Federation work better.
The time has come to form a closer partnership between our
three levels of government Commonwealth, State and local.
Our first task is to move by sensible, practicable steps to
get better co-operation within the framework of the Federal
Constitution as it stands. That is where I propose we focus
our main effort.
Our second task is to apply the spirit of national
co-operation in a new approach to reform of the Constitution
itself. Today, I propose proces ses through which these tasks can be
achieved sustained and substantial processes to explore
and map the areas where co-operation for common objectives
is not only desirable but realistically achievable.
The goals are to improve our national efficiency and
international competitiveness, and to improve the delivery
and quality of the services governments provide.
2.
We need to remove the impediments and the anomalies which
stand in the way of those goals.
My friends, alone of the peoples of the world, we have a
continent to ourselves. With all the marvellous diversity
of our land, with all the rich diversity of our people, we
share a commitment to a single national identity. Wherever
we live in this wide country, we adhere to the same
fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy, freedom
of the individual and the rule of law. And the Federal
system itself underwrites this diversity with unity.
Yet within this splendid unity, we have imposed on ourselves
a burden of different rules and regulations and requirements
which needlessly weighs against the tremendous advantages we
can have as a nation-continent.
We are proud that as a modern and prosperous society we can
provide quality services to people whether they live in the
city or the bush but too often, essential services are
getting tangled up in bureaucratic overlap.
The battling family in the city fringe; the Aboriginal
community in the remote outback; the frail aged at home or
in hospital they don't want to argue the toss about which
bureaucracy provides the help to which they are entitled.
And their least concern is some academic argument of
Commonwealth versus State rights. And the instinct of the
people is correct.
The real emphasis our real concern should be the rights
and needs of citizens, not as, say, Queenslanders or
Tasmanians, but as Australians.
Now that might sound just a clich6. But what happens in
practice? Schools in different States have different minimum starting
ages, and different patterns of schooling at primary and
secondary levels, and different curricula, and different
ways of assessing Year 12 students differences that give
totally unnecessary headaches not only to students who may
move interstate but also to employers and tertiary
institutions who look to the schools system to provide
meaningful standards for recruitment.
Lawyers and doctors and other professionals may have
quaifiatinsfrom the :-best universities.. in Australia or
the world; skilled tradesmen may have the finest on-the-job
experience but to work outside their home State they need
a licence from a State licensing board.
How sensible is it to shrink what is already a relatively
small Australian market into separate State markets?
Yet that is what we do:
when we force manufacturers to put different labels and
different packages on the same products;
when we give three different definitions to bread;
when one State demands that margarine be sold only in a
package shaped like a cube;
when each State has its own separate design
requirements for water meters; its own quality
standards for chemicals used in agriculture.
Two States forbid a certain kind of heavy semi-trailer that
is legal everywhere else; there is no uniformity between
States on the time a truckie can spend behind the wheel;
each State issues its own driver's licences. Only last
month we at last managed to achieve in principle agreement
to prevent unscrupulous truck drivers from getting multiple
licences so they could flout the demerit points systems
wherever they liked. It took years of work so I suppose
we can say with Galileo, ' Nevertheless, it moves'.
We cannot pretend to be serious about the gl~ aa greenhouse
effect if we think in terms of separate State and national.
strategies. Now, my purpose today is not to prescribe the changes to be
made to cure these absurdities and anomalies.
I am not specifying outcomes.
But I am describing the areas where I seek change through
co-operation; and I am proposing a process through which
change can be achieved a process which will produce
results. I acknowledge, at once, the progress already being made
thanks to the hard work of the various Ministerial Councils
which bring together State and Federal Ministers and
officials across a range of policy areas.
But the challenge is broader and more urgent for us all.
My friends, we all need to do some fundamental re-thinkingand
not just governments but the major political parties,
the -business community, . the, . unions, opinion-tfarmers.
The question we all will have to answer is this: ' Are we
ready for the 21st century?'. And if the changes we need to
make are to be effective, we must all be prepared to take a
fresh look at ourselves our way of doing things, at the
habits, the assumptions, the prejudices of the past.
And in particular I point today to the challenge facing us
in these areas:
micro-economic reform;
financial relations;
delivery of services;
the national agenda for social justice;
industrial relations;
the protection of the environment;
and Constitutional reform.
I mention micro-economic reform first, because it is common
ground that it is absolutely essential, if we are to have a
more competitive economy. It means we must improve the
performance of the structures which underpin the national
economy it means better ports, a more modern transport
system, faster communications, cheaper power.
My Government has acted to reform the financial system,
tariffs, aviation, telecommunications, taxation, and its own
business enterprises areas of virtually exclusive
Commonwealth control. We still have unfinished business on
our agenda.
In advancing to the next stage, the co-operation of the
States is essential.
The division of responsibility enshrined in our Federal
system need not and must not be an insuperable barrier
against co-operation.
Look at the progress two sovereign nations Australia and
New Zealand have made in integrating our economies under
the Closer Economic Relations agreement. Look indeed at the
progress the twelve sovereign nations of the European
Community are making: there will be less impediment against
trade of goods and services between them in 1992 than there
is now between the States of Australia.
Here, key areas of our economy remain balkanised.
The limited arrangements which do exist to share electricity
between States are hamstrung by inefficient pricing
restrictions, hidden cross-subsidies between different
consumers and planning decisions which seem to accept State
borders as market barriers. Our aviation system remains
hobbled by regulatory fragmentation. And our railways
* remain burdened with the-legacy of-differences between our
colonial engineers.
A cargo container being sent by rail between Sydney and
Perth may be subjected to:
3 non-integrated rail systems;
4 changes of locomotives;
5 different safe working systems;
6 different sizes of loading gauge;
10 different engineering standards of the basic
standard gauge rail track;
12 or more hours at sidings or junctions for crew
changes, refuelling, inspections.
How, under such circumstances, can rail avoid being a drain
on the taxpayer? And what of the impact of this situation
on Australia's international competitiveness?
And how, with this set-up, can rail compete with road? One
offers door-to-door overnight service, tailored to suit
modern just-in-time inventories. The other must contend
with up to three rail authorities controlling the progress
of its freight, leading inevitably to confusion about who
has responsibility for delivery.
We need to tackle these issues. In rail, for example, the
Commonwealth and the States are giving serious consideration
to a National Rail Freight Initiative, involving new
investment in track and terminal facilities; guarantees
perhaps contractual commitments to high priority
schedules; and new industrial relations standards.
It is no exaggeration to say that the Initiative, to be
successful, will require Commonwealth-State co-operation on
a scale we've seldom seen hitherto in this country.
But we must strive to achieve that co-operation and not
just in rail transport, but over the whole range of
micro-economic reform. It is not so much an option, as an
imperative.
My friends, in this national endeavour, we must, of course,
work within a basic macro-economic framework. Australia
must have one central level of effective economic
management. The level and incidence of taxation and public
sector borrowing should be primarily determined at a
national level.
But let me say this, in the spirit of my genuine desire for
a -closerpartnership.. wi-th.. the States: the imperative of
national economic management need not preclude worthwhile
change in Commonwealth-State financial arrangements.
We are prepared, for example, to look at changes to the
Premiers' Conference arrangements.
Further, I announce today that the Commonwealth will respond
positively to the Premiers' requests in regard to financial
institutions taxes. We will relinquish the bank accounts
debits tax to the States.
A third point: the Premiers want more of their Commonwealth
funds in untied rather than tied form. And it is certainly
legitimate to ask whether tied arrangements limit program
efficiency. We may find a need to move away from tied
grants in a number of areas; and in other areas, a need to
change our arrangements so that we get better value for
money. It is timely and proper to consider this aspect of
our funding arrangements. We are ready to do so.
Friends, in the post-War period, the functions performed by
our Governments Federal, State and local have changed
radically. Behind this change, forcing its pace, there has been I
believe the irresistible and irreversible thrust of an
historic process the working out in Australia of the idea
of progress and equality and the just expectations of a free
people. But too often in practice the result especially in health
and welfare services has been duplication of effort
duplication, for example, of accounting and monitoring,
duplication of consultation and complaints mechanisms.
Too often the financing and administration of a service is
shared between, or rather divided between, different tiers
of governments. Too often different governments are
providing closely related services, without proper
co-ordination.
Such arrangements can actually distort the very design of
programs in the interests of shifting costs from one level
of government to the other literally, passing the buck
instead of serving the interests of the clients.
Surely, when we think of all the money, skills and good
intentions put into these efforts, there must be a better
way of serving the needs of the people.
We must find, as a nation, a better way of integrating the
legitimate policy interests of the Commonwealth and State
Governments and achieving more integrated and more effective
delivery of programs and services to our citizens.
It is my belief that we should be ready to review aUl the
services which the Commonwealth and the States deliver.
But I suggest the health and welfare fields would be the
most useful starting point for review.
What I propose today is a process of program rationalisation
through joint examination with the States a process which
yields practical results. I do not want a voluminous
comprehensive report at the end of some long unspecified
period of study. I want proposals to come forward case by
case; to be dealt with on their merits, case by case; and
specific decisions to be made, case by case.
Let us enter this process with these watchwords: precision
and decision.
in all this, the Australian Government can never avoid or
evade its genuine national responsibilities.
In the first place, there are groups for whom the national
government has special responsibility veterans,
Aborigines, newly arrived migrants and refugees, for
example. Moreover, only the national government can effectively
identify certain problems, which can vary widely in their
regional or local incidence, yet which may require a
national policy, financed nationally, for their solutions.
But the experience of the years tells us that there are
important services which would be improved if the Federal
Government were not directly involved in their delivery.
I emphasise that the joint review I propose is aimed at
achieving better services, better delivered. Any cost
savings and of course there should be savings would be a
bonus. And I give the assurance that, to the extent State
Governments take over any administrative responsibilities
for programs previously run by the Commonwealth, they will
be compensated, and compensated fairly.
There are two objectives:
first, to put into better order the existing
service delivery system,
and then, to make sure that as we take up new
challenges, and governments undertake new
commitments, we don't create a new set of
problems, through overlapping and duplication of
responsibilities.
This is especially relevant and important for the success of
the national strategy for social justice my government
pledged to pursue in seeking the people's mandate for a
fourth term.
It-is:. a: national.. strategy; -but the. co-operation of the
States and local government is essential.
The Australians living in the rapidly expanding urban
fringes are experiencing a special set of social problems
not enough affordable housing; poor access to employment,
public transport, schools, hospitals and recreation.
Their problems real problems, human problems, things that
people have to cope with every day of their lives are
compounded by our failure to co-ordinate the delivery of
services across the levels of government.
The co-operation of States and local government will be
needed not only to implement the strategy, but to supply the
information needed to identify and tackle the problems.
And I believe that if we can move forward together with the
States on a new social justice agenda, the common effort
itself can give rise to a new spirit of co-operation which
can spread out to other fields.
One such area is industrial relations.
We have a profusion and confusion of industrial relations
systems. As a result, there are wide variations between
awards and work practices, determined by seven major
tribunals and a host of smaller ones. It encourages
leapfrogging in wages and conditions and fosters uncertainty
for unions and employers alike as to whether their industry
is covered by Federal or State rules, or both.
It's not just an inconvenience it's an impediment to
stable wage fixing and sound economic policy.
The Commonwealth and the States are already working to
improve the legislative framework. But the potential exists
for much more co-operation and co-ordination. My own
inclination is that it is a field in which the Commonwealth
should have ultimate responsibility, and I note with special
interest that the Premier of New South Wales for one has not
discounted such a development.
My friends,
Anyone familiar with the history of my Government would know
we have not shirked our national responsibility for the
environment. And we are not about to abandon that
responsibility. But my Government has always preferred co-operative
solutions. Indeed, the environment must increasingly become
an area in which common ground and common purpose come to
replace controversy and confrontation.
. The.-Commonwealth and States. are.-already co-operating on
national air and water quality standards; the Landcare
program; management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park;
and the Tasmanian World Heritage Area.
My Government is determined to make sure that Australia
moves firmly along the path of ecologically sustainable
development.
We are working with business, unions and conservation groups
and we seek the involvement of the States. That
involvement includes their joining the sectoral working
groups which will make policy recommendations to the
Government. These groups are to start their work shortly.
There is clear merit in working together on these issues.
Commonly agreed environmental processes and guidelines,
where possible, will better achieve the objectives of the
Commonwealth, States, industry, workers and the community.
The same co-operation essential to the review of
Commonwealth-State program delivery which I have already
outlined will need to be applied to the sustainable
development process, if we are to achieve the best results
for Australia.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I must emphasise that there is an essential ingredient if we
are to produce substantial results from the exercise I
propose. It requires a commitment of leadership. Success will
depend, in the end, on both myself and the Premiers being
closely involved at strategic times, particularly in
decision-making. We must not allow the overall thrust to be
lost in a mire of bickering and intransigence in particular
subject areas. Of course the detail is important but it
needs to be worked through rather than allowed to become an
excuse for saying that it is all too difficult.
Accordingly I anticipate a number of special Premiers'
Conferences on these issues.
I have today written to the Premiers proposing a Special
Premiers' Conference take place on 31 October and 1 November
in Brisbane. As far as I am concerned, everything I have
discussed today is on the table from micro-economic reform
and program delivery to industrial relations and the
environment.* And I welcome further suggestions from the
Premiers as to what they want discussed.
The first meeting should choose what should be dealt with
first and set in motion the immediate processes to make
decisions.
. Further, before the Conference, I plan to establish a
Commonwealth-State Steering Committee chaired by the
Secretary of my Department with equivalent State Government
representation. Its main role will be to arrange for the
preparation of papers for this first Conference and then in
broad terms to co-ordinate and advance future work.
Moreover, I propose to set up forthwith a special group in
my Department headed at a very senior level to provide
continuing support.
Of course, detailed involvement will be needed from
Commonwealth, State and other areas of specialist knowledge.
There must be consultation with interested groups.
Such involvement and consultation will ensure decisions are
well informed. I repeat, however they will not represent
a barrier to timely decision-making at the highest levels.
Clearly, many of the issues for consideration directly
involve local government.
I have therefore proposed to the Premiers that the Local
Government Association be invited to participate at the
Conference, on issues relevant to them.
In my letter to the Premiers, I have emphasised that my
Government is prepared to commit itself to new processes
pursued in a new spirit to improve our Federal system, and
urging that they and their Governments make the same
commitment. Ladies and gentlemen,
I now come to the area of reform which we must acknowledge
has proved most difficult to achieve the Constitution
itself. It is true that there have been very significant changes in
the way we govern ourselves, within the existing
Constitution. The most significant of these has been the uniform taxation
system a war-time measure which has profoundly changed the
relations between Federal and State Governments in
peace-time.
High Court decisions have done more to alter the
Constitution than all the referendums.
And there has been, without change to the text of the
Constitution, quiet and constructive adjustment in the roles
of the Federal and State Governments in such areas as family
law. Thus, without actual change in the written Constitution,
there has been considerable change in the role and
responsibilities of the three levels of government.
That is why, in these remarks, I have focussed my thinking
in terms of a broad process of change, through consultation
and co-operation a process we can get moving on now.
But, I also believe we have to seek new paths towards a more
contemporary Constitution.
11.
One of the reasons why so many valuable proposals have been
defeated at referendums over the last ninety years has been
that, almost invariably, they have become entangled in party
political controversy.
Now, I do not condemn that out of hand. In itself, it
reflects the strength of our democracy and the main source
of that strength is the vigour of our great political
parties. Nevertheless, it is a plain fact of our history that it is
almost impossible to amend our Constitution in an atmosphere
of partisan controversy.
Therefore, I believe we need to take a new approach
creating a continuing process to identify the areas of
aarpmAnt, to achieve Constitutional change.
Next March and April will mark an important Australian
anniversary the centenary of the First Australasian
Constitutional Convention.
As I pointed out at the beginning, the work of creating the
Australian Commonwealth took ten years. There is gathering
interest about what we do over the next ten years, the years
remaining before the Centenary of Federation in 2001.
I want to give momentum to that interest.
A Steering Committee is being established to develop
arrangements and an agenda for a Constitutional Conference
next year to mark the centenary.
I am delighted to be able to say today that the former
Governor-General Sir Ninian Stephen has indicated his
willingness to chair this Steering Committee.
This is not to be a government-run conference but the
Commonwealth government intends to support it financially
and in other ways and participate in it. And I hope State
governments will do likewise.
My hope is to break away from the situation where the
Commonwealth Government considers and puts to referendum
proposals for amendment of the Constitution only to find
that we do not have the requisite support from the States or
other parties, or support that evaporates in the heat of
partisan controversy. We -owe it to the future of the
country to test a different approach, one in which proposals
emerge from collective discussion and deliberation.
Some proposals may emerge which can be taken forward in the
next couple of years. Equally, in some areas the process
might not bear fruit until closer to the Centenary year of
2001. How long, for example, must we all go on accepting
the merit of the four year term without achieving it?
12.
I may say that I take encouragement from recent comments by
the Leader of the Opposition Dr Hewson, indicating his and
his Party's wish to bring a bi-partisan attitude to
questions like the 4-year term. If that support is
sustained, I would propose a referendum on a four year term
at the next Federal election.
But whether we are looking at early proposals or ones to be
put later in the decade, we should start now.
For the Commonwealth's part, we shall be there in April, we
shall listen with close attention and we shall participate
constructively. I will be personally involved, and I sincerely hope the
Premiers and the Opposition leaders will join with me in
this very important exercise. Continuing involvement at
this level will ensure the success of proposals for change
which will certainly emerge.
Friends, In all that I have said today, the operative word is
' achievable'.
We cannot re-write the Constitution. We cannot replace the
Federal system.
But we can make the Constitution and the Federal system
under which we live work better.
I have outlined an achievable, yet wide-ranging agenda for
change and reform in the way we govern ourselves.
I have proposed a process or rather, a range of processes
by which we can move together towards reform in a measured
manner. It is a process which, I am convinced, can give us
a workable machinery to create a closer partnership, a
genuine partnership, for the better governance of this great
nation.