23 March 2011
Mr MORRIS (Mornington) — It is a great privilege, by virtue of holding a seat in this house, to have the opportunity to participate in the address‑in‑reply to the Governor’s opening speech at the commencement of this 57th Parliament.
It is indeed an honour and a great responsibility to be elected by my peers to attend this house, and I am sure all of us in this place have the same view regardless of our viewpoints on other matters.
I am reminded of this responsibility and honour every time I walk up the front steps to engage in debate on affairs or the future of this state. After four years in opposition — and I am sure many of my colleagues would say, ‘Only four years?’ — it is indeed a refreshing experience to achieve government and to have the opportunity to implement the blueprint for the state presented by the coalition, to be engaged in the task of keeping faith with the Victorian community and in the delivery of good government in accord with the priorities in the Governor’s statement.
That of course includes a growing economy, services that work, strong families and vibrant communities, secure water, a healthy environment — and without that there is nothing else — and, perhaps most important of all in the context of a state election, a government you can trust.
The government has made an impressive start on its agenda, and the fact that we have only just returned to debating the address‑in‑reply attests to the strength of the government’s legislative program. It has to be said, however, that the antics of opposition members and their apparent desire to use every procedural device in the book to derail debate and to try, albeit with zero effect so far, to prevent the government from implementing its program has probably had some side effect on that as well.
That program, that comprehensive blueprint for the future, was reflected in the Governor’s speech, but in the course of this contribution I would like to focus on the future from a slightly different perspective and examine an issue I believe to be a critical one: the future sustainability of our state. I wish to ask, perhaps in an indirect way, whether we indeed have a future as a state. On the surface of course we do; we have a very bright and promising future.
But a dark cloud lurks just beneath the horizon , and it goes by the formal term of commonwealth‑state relations. It has become more popularly known as the blame game. It has dominated recent political debate to an unprecedented extent, and that is because it is becoming almost impossible to tell what functions should be carried out by local and state governments and what responsibilities should be held by the commonwealth.
In 1901 the distinctions between state and federal functions were largely unblurred. The arrangements that had been agreed upon between founding colonies theoretically provided some certainty in terms of assigning duties to the commonwealth and the colonies. The terms were defined by section 51 of the constitution. In addition there was some capacity to make laws where none existed. There also existed override arrangements and the ability of states to refer matters to the federal Parliament, which has been done on many occasions since then.
The financial relations that were entered into resulted in the states being effectively and, it would appear across the distance of time, unexpectedly deprived of their principal revenue stream. The expectation was that three‑quarters of surplus funds remaining from commonwealth revenues — the principal revenue in the early days was from duty — would initially be returned to the states, and from a particular point in time the balance remaining would be returned. I understand that did in fact occur.
But — surprise, surprise — in 1908 the surplus revenue act was passed, it was debated in the chamber in which we are standing tonight. In the course of the passage of that legislation trust funds were created which dealt with commonwealth surplus, so the states were left short‑changed.
In part, section 96 of the Constitution provided a mechanism to fill that vacuum. Section 96 is the provision that allows the commonwealth to make payments to the states for particular purposes and on such terms and conditions as it sees fit. However, the arrangements did not allow the states to have control over their own destiny, so more than 100 years ago the states were in effect deprived of a large part of their capacity to control their own destiny.
It is interesting to note the comments of a former member of this house for the seat of West Bourke and later for the seat of Essendon and Flemington, who remarkably was the Australian correspondent to London’s Morning Post in 1902. The member said:
As the power of the purse in Great Britain established by degrees the authority of the commons, so it will in Australia ultimately establish the authority of the commonwealth. The rights of self‑governance of the states have been fondly supposed to be safeguarded by the constitution. It has left them legally free, but financially bound to the chariot wheels of the commonwealth.
That quote appeared in a paper by another former member of this house, former Premier Sir Rupert Hamer, and the person quoted is former Australian Prime Minister Alfred Deakin. One certainly has to acknowledge, 109 years on, the prescience of his comments. Unfortunately as each year passes those comments become more and more appropriate.
We have moved a long way since 1901, as we had to and as we should have. In many ways we have made considerable improvements to the way the federation works and the way we do business between the states and the commonwealth — the national regulatory framework for business and the professions and the move to a seamless national economy.
All those recent innovations, like many that went before them, have been essential components in the growth of the nation and the continued growth in our national and state standard of living.
I certainly do not argue that the commonwealth should retreat to its original role, to go back into its corner and stay there, but I argue most strongly that the current arrangements that hand control of most revenues to the commonwealth do not deliver the best outcomes for the Victorian community.
A culture of blame shifting has developed because the commonwealth — and this is an entirely apolitical comment; both sides are equally complicit in this — has used the national taxation stream available to it to advance its own political interests, whatever they were, by imposing its views on the states, by becoming involved in areas traditionally administered by the states and in many cases by establishing a competing public sector organisation at vast expense to taxpayers all around the country.
The process has not been driven by a desire for reform; rather it has been driven simply by a desire for short‑term political gain. Patch upon patch upon patch, the system creaks along; it is still working, but only just. Unless we have change, unless we actually challenge the system, we are as a state on a slippery slope, one that will inevitably lead to the failure of the state or at the very least the transformation of what is still a sovereign government into a service delivery agency for the commonwealth.
Some might think that is a good thing; perhaps somewhat predictably, I am certainly not one of those people. It is not, as some uncharitable souls might think, simply because I like having a seat in this house. To me that is entirely immaterial, as are the parochial issues. It is because I believe the state system performs a critical role in protecting the interests of Victorians and particularly in this context in protecting the interests of Victorian taxpayers.
One does not have to look too far back to see some of the difficulties with the current system. It would be interesting to have the time to work through what has happened since Federation, but for the purposes of this discussion a recent example will suffice — that is, the recent decision to slice $2.5 billion off the state’s GST receipts, a decision that will have a critical impact on our budget., and we all know about cuts to the regional rail link funding, almost half a billion dollars, or $450 million.
Our share of total revenue continues to decline, and as it declines more and more strings are attached to it.
Our ability to influence our own direction and our own future declines with each imposition. Revenue is used as a blunt instrument to direct and impose federal priorities on the people of Victoria. It is a one‑size‑fits‑all system, which has no regard for the interests and people of individual states.
In recent months — perhaps it may be 12 months ago now — a fast train was proposed for the east coast. There were to be many stations in New South Wales — unfortunately I could not find the related clipping before I came up here to speak — but from recollection it was 10 or 12. In Victoria there were just two — one at the Melbourne terminal and one at Tullamarine, and from Tullamarine it went straight through the middle of your seat, Acting Speaker, express to Albury, with absolutely no opportunity to develop the Victorian regions effected by that scheme.
Our interests were completely and utterly ignored and the more populous state of New South Wales was the winner.
The federal government long ago moved beyond its section 51 responsibilities. It moved into school funding under Menzies and into health funding under Whitlam. Under Rudd and Gillard, under the guise of ending the blame game, it has moved into almost every conceivable facet of Australian life, most recently in urban planning.
In almost every case the move has been matched by a huge expansion of the Canberra‑based bureaucracy, which has zero understanding of conditions on the ground and which has next to no role to play at all in the state scene in terms of the delivery of services and the delivery of infrastructure, all at huge cost to the Victorian taxpayer.
The structure of our national taxation system means we are entirely at the mercy of the federal government when it comes to capital spending — or to use the current jargon, infrastructure spending. It is easy to criticise the states for not keeping pace but the revenue stream simply has not kept up.
This is not an argument about states’ rights, it is about the rights of the people of the states, it is about the rights of Victorians to build the sort of community they want to have and live in now and sort of future they want to build, and not to simply hand over our hard‑earned cash to see it spent elsewhere in the country.
In the time remaining I would like to recognise the efforts of those people without whose assistance I would not be here. Politics, as we all know, is a team sport, and I am very fortunate to have great support from a wide cross‑section of the community. I have a great local Liberal team, led by Terry Leech and Arthur Ranken, who both worked tirelessly for the cause.
I also want to recognise the efforts of a number of other local figures, including Peter Angelico, Greg Dixon, Christine Nekrasov and so many others who worked so hard for the Mornington victory. I am particularly lucky to be supported by a great staff, and I want to say a big thankyou to both Raeleigh Speedie and Debbie Mitchell, who do so much to make my office work and who contribute so much to my endeavours. Your hard work and support is truly appreciated.
Then of course there is one person even more important than those I have mentioned: someone who has been there right from the start; someone who is critical to the success of the campaign. She is a true force of nature — my darling wife, Linda. Without her I would not be here.
The Baillieu government has laid out a blueprint that will transform the state in the next four years, and I welcome the opportunity to be part of that great work.
Legislative Assembly 23 March 2011
Printer Friendly Version...