I have written a fair bit on constitutional issues. Rather than repeating those views, I thought that I would ask you. How would you restructure the Australian Federation? How would you make our system work better? Is it in fact possible?
Postscript
The first comments received focused on the GST. Anons one and two focused on the political aspects of the GST. Winton Bates wrote
I think the starting point should be to establish an allocation of GST as close as possible to what it would be if it was a state tax. That would make fiscal equalisation a separate issue and help state premiers to consider whether the base of GST should be broadened, rate raised, more reliance placed on property taxes, spending reduced etc.I am inclined to agree with Winton.
Postscript 2
The debate really does seem to be bogged down at present on GST.
Postscript 3
Ross Gittin's take: GST out of the box, but states won't budge
9 comments:
They are not fair dinkum about constitutional reform, they just want to increase the GST.
I think the starting point should be to establish an allocation of GST as close as possible to what it would be if it was a state tax. That would make fiscal equalisation a separate issue and help state premiers to consider whether the base of GST should be broadened, rate raised, more reliance placed on property taxes, spending reduced etc.
Weatherill (SA) has just declared the GST hike dead. Given the election in just five weeks in Victoria, like all the proposals Abbott put up knowing they'd never clear the Senate, this one is DOA.
I think that's a very good idea, Winton.
Anon one, the GST is one issue.This exercise takes the existing constitution as a given.How do make what we have work better?
Anon two, not so sure. The process set up will run for twelve months or so, well past the immediate state elections.
Wouldn't significant change mean a change in the constitution?
I too think this is just political rhetoric, there is basically zero possibility of it happening.
Parkes' speech may be credited with the movement toward a national form of government, but if you actually read it, his simplistic push was for a unified national army, and for a unified railroad system by which said army might be more easily deployed. Hint: no mention of troops moving overseas, just within the colonies.
Nothing has changed - in fact it's more the same now than it was then.
Abbott's speech was full of platitudes, memorable only for its geography, not its content.
It's interesting that Parkes took as his example the formation of the US. With hindsight on how that's now working out, I wonder if he would be quite so enthusiastic? A better example in the gradual accumulation of unresponsible centralised power I have yet to see.
The Anons are right anyway: it'll never fly. But by golly won't the permanent political class, and their underling toady press provocateurs be amused by twisting us all between various imaginary, impossible outcomes.
When Parkes talks of "what would become of an army without a central executive power to guide its movements?" he was looking right at us, and deciding we needed his help, his "guidance" - and his army.
And nothing much has changed, except the methods and the weapons.
kvd
Not necessarily, Evan. It would require a real willingness by the Feds to give up control.
Same process in Canada, kvd, where the provinces have the specified powers. Mind you, Quebec has made a difference!
le New En- Noveau-Francoise people can speak le French if that would le help!
Bon. Our pollies sometimes appear to speak Greek! Woops, apologies to Greece.
Post a Comment