Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

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)

See this speech in context