Former NSW Treasury Secretary Percy Allan on the need for new states

Former NSW Treasury Secretary Percy Allan on why the current states should be replaced by smaller regional based Governments - WHAT DO WE DO WITH MELBOURNE AND SYDNEY?

Local Government & the Australian Constitution

Just at present, an expert panel is reviewing the question of whether or not there should be some form of constitutional recognition for local government. The following submission to the panel was written by Newcastle accountant, Greg Howell, the president of the emerging Northern New State Movement.

Constitutional recognition for local government raises some complicated issues from a new state perspective. Many new staters support an enhanced role for local government, but how to achieve that without destroying the ideal of real self government raises complicated issues.

I will explore some of those issues tomorrow drawing from Greg's analysis. For the moment, I note that Greg is writing in a personal capacity to place issues and ideas on the table.   

29th October, 2011
The Secretariat
Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government
GPO Box 803
Canberra ACT 2601

Submission to Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government

As an interested citizen, I am responding to the discussion paper published on the website http://www.localgovrecognition.gov.au/

I have no political affiliations, but I am acutely aware of the difficulties and challenges faced by regional Australia. My own perspective is that of a resident of Newcastle – Australia’s largest non-capital city, and a significant but often neglected large regional centre.

Introduction

The role of government should be to provide its’ citizens with fairness in terms of democratic representation, self-government where possible and equitable distribution of funding and services to all citizens, regardless of whether they live in capital cities or regional cities and towns. Regional Australia gets a very poor deal in this regard.

Consider this:

1) The Newcastle region has over 550,000 people residing in five LGA’s. Those five LGA’s have no unifying strategy for the Lower Hunter, nor do they have any significant capability of developing any such strategy. They are largely in competition with each other and have limited financial resources. Most significant government matters are administered at state level in Sydney by bureaucrats with little knowledge or understanding of the Lower Hunter.

2) The Newcastle region alone has a larger population than the state of Tasmania and also larger than the territories of ACT and NT, each of which has self-government, Senate representation, a voice at COAG and a share of Commonwealth funding. The Hunter and Northern NSW generally have no such independent voice or advocacy.

3) Northern NSW from the Hunter to the Queensland border has a population exceeding 1.5 million people, similar to that of South Australia. This represents approximately 7% of Australia’s total population in an area larger than the state of Victoria. Yet it's voice, unique needs and aspirations are swamped by metropolitan Sydney which dominates the state of NSW.

4) The people of Northern NSW have held aspirations of self-government which pre-date the creation of Victoria in 1851 and Queensland in 1859. Those states have far outstripped Northern NSW since their creation. Without self-government, Northern NSW slips ever further behind in infrastructure, services and relative importance. This is not only to the disadvantage of Northern NSW but also the disadvantage of Australia.

5) Politically, Northern NSW currently provides just one of the 76 Senators to the Australian Parliament. It has not provided a NSW state premier since the first years of federation and it’s only Prime Minister was Earle Page from Grafton (for just 20 days in 1939). That is an appallingly poor representation for Australia’s largest, and arguably it’s most important, region.

Northern NSW has Australia’s largest regional population, yet the above suggests that it is under-represented at higher levels of government and suffers from a lack of self-empowerment. All levels of government have failed Northern NSW badly. Regional Australia clearly needs more than just token recognition of relatively weak local government.

The discussion paper states that:

“The Constitution sets the basic rules on how governments, and the different arms of government, operate in Australia. Due to historical circumstances, it addresses only the relationships between State Governments, Territories and the Commonwealth. Local government is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.”

As the discussion paper states, Australia has indeed changed significantly since Federation. A nation of fewer than 4 million has grown to 22 million. Sydney’s population has grown from about ½ million to 4.4 million and its’ share of NSW population has grown from 36% to more than 60%. Northern NSW now has a greater population than had the entire state of NSW at the time of Federation. but a significantly lower proportion of the total state population.

In spite of these demographic changes Australia’s political landscape has remained static with no new states having been added in the 110 years since Federation. By comparison, USA has added 5 new states to their Federation in that time reflecting their continuing evolution and progress.

The relationship between the Commonwealth and the States has not always been smooth. The Commonwealth increasingly micro-manages state affairs, to the disadvantage of the States, via fiscal dominance and the state grants power contained in section 96 of the Constitution. It is hard to imagine how the Commonwealth might now also micro-manage some 560 competing local government bodies.

I will address my views in relation to the specific points in the discussion paper under the same headings.

Why recognise local government in the Constitution?

The discussion paper makes the claim that:

“Local government would be better able to attract the support and resources it needs, and to develop the new capacities to fulfil its increasingly important role in our system of government.”

This is a dubious claim without evidence. It is hard to imagine that local government would or could be any better positioned unless recognition is also accompanied by the ability to raise taxation revenue and make laws of its’ own. This in turn would change the entire nature of government in Australia and would probably have little chance of success in any referendum. This claim is not one that lends any significant weight to the need for local government recognition.

Ideas for changing the Constitution

The discussion paper has sought ideas that will:

• “make a practical difference
• have a reasonable chance at a referendum
• resonate with the public.”

The expert panel noted a real potential Constitutional impediment to including any substantive provisions in the Constitution in that it could be held to “prohibit a State from altering the fundamental characteristics of a system of local government.”

It is hard to imagine any ideas that lack substantive provisions resonating with the public and having a reasonable chance of success at a referendum.

“The panel would also like to know whether there are any other ideas you would like to add.”

I have addressed my own ideas in detail under the heading “Further Questions”.

Symbolic recognition

“Do you think that, if the Constitution is changed to include a preamble or statement of values, local government should be referred to in either?”

“Symbolic recognition of local government would seek to enhance the status of local government in the Australian Federation in a way that has minimal or no legal effects.”

It is hard to see the purpose of any mere symbolic recognition of local government. If there is no substantive change from this process then this would be a truly wasted opportunity.

The discussion paper failed to examine just what, if anything, such a “preamble or statement of values” would be designed to achieve. This would seem to add little advancement to either the interpretation of the Constitution or the status of local government. Given that local government is recognised in each of the state constitutions, further reference in the Commonwealth Constitution would seem to be an unnecessary duplication.

We need to be careful to ensure that there is no overlap and confusion as to which level of government is ultimately responsible for the conduct of local government. If it is to remain the responsibility of the states (and there is no reason to believe that any change to this responsibility is either necessary or desirable) then why local government should be mentioned in the Commonwealth Constitution needs some explanation. Without an objective or an explanation of what this is intended to achieve I would not support this proposal.

Financial recognition

“Should the Constitution be changed to explicitly say that the Commonwealth Government can provide funding directly to local councils? Do you agree with either of the suggested changes to section 96 of the Constitution?”

Funding of local government services is a significant issue. Councils have relatively limited ability to raise revenue and limited powers delegated by their states. The states have ultimate fiscal responsibility for government within their state boundaries.

As pointed out in the discussion paper, direct funding by the Commonwealth is of questionable constitutional validity. I also do not agree that direct funding would be desirable since the demands of 560 LGA’s would potentially raise questions of equitable allocation of Commonwealth resources, as well as the real likelihood of further undesirable centralisation of power and control in Canberra.

It should be remembered why our states federated into one nation. The original purpose was for the common good with respect to matters of shared interest (eg. defence, foreign affairs, trade, communications, currency, pensions & welfare etc.). Local and regional matters such as public hospitals, education, roads, and justice remained, quite properly, state responsibilities. The states remain the cornerstone of our federation.

I doubt that our founding fathers had ever intended or even considered that the Commonwealth would become so fiscally dominant as it is today and that it would apply the state grants powers under section 96 in such a questionable manner in order to micro-manage state affairs, much less bypass the states altogether.

This is a significant issue in relations between the levels of government.

I would not support any proposals which have the effect of giving the Commonwealth more power to direct spending via tied grants to either the states or to bypass the states directly to local government bodies. This would only serve to increase centralisation, bureaucratic control and waste from Canberra, when the object should be more decentralisation and regional empowerment.

For reasons outlined above I would strongly oppose any of the suggested changes to section 96 of the Constitution.

Democratic recognition

“Should democratic elections for local governments be guaranteed by the Constitution? If so, which of the proposed provisions should be included in the Constitution?”

Councils have relatively limited ability to raise revenue and limited law making powers. The states remain ultimately responsible for administrations within their borders and therefore should retain the right to dismiss dysfunctional councils where necessary.

Council elections are already a democratic tradition across all states and territories. Dismissal of a democratically elected council is a rare event and unlikely to be taken for spurious reasons. I do support the principle that local government should be democratically elected and should not be dismissed except by an act of the state parliament as opposed to ministerial directive. However, this is and should remain a matter for each state and territory Constitution rather than a Commonwealth constitutional issue. I do not believe that local government is a Commonwealth matter and would be hesitant to support amendment of the Commonwealth Constitution in this regard.

Recognition through federal cooperation

“If the Constitution is changed to refer to the desirability of cooperation between the Commonwealth and the States, should local government be included in any such provision?”

In a practical sense governments already co-operate, although tension naturally occurs when state rights are impinged, when governments of opposing political persuasions disagree or when the Commonwealth and the States have different objectives.

I see little potential for improving and streamlining government by including local government in this process. It could potentially lead to a further blurring of responsibilities, bogging down the business of government in excessive consultation. The states should be free to carry out the business of government within their borders without Commonwealth interference. The Commonwealth’s primary responsibility must be to manage matters of national significance rather than to become involved in local or regional issues. I would oppose any such provision.

Further questions

“What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of the particular ideas discussed in this paper?”

Mere symbolic recognition of local government would be a wasted opportunity. Yet I am even more concerned that something more than symbolic recognition for local government would represent a substantial shift in our system of government and potentially lead to greater regulation and control from Canberra. Regional Australia needs more decentralisation.

“Which ideas, or combination of ideas, do you think could best provide a basis for constitutional recognition of local government in Australia?”

For the reasons stated above I cannot support any of the ideas presented. Given the poor history of referenda in Australia and the failure of the 1974 and 1988 referendum questions, it would seem unlikely that enough support can be gathered for constitutional change without an exceptionally strong argument. None of the arguments presented in the discussion paper were persuasive and most proposals have significant ramifications barely considered.

“Are there any other ideas not covered in this discussion paper that you support?”

The Constitution has an existing but never used mechanism contained in Chapter 6 “New States”, sections 121 – 124. This should be activated to create the decentralised government that regional Australia desperately needs.

The constitution requires no amendment to create new self-governing states, although an intransigent state refusing to cede territory could still be an impediment under the provisions as they currently stand. However, this would run counter to the principles of self-determination and a state parliament would find it difficult not to accede to regional self-government if there was a plebiscite in the proposed new state area in favour.

There is a long precedent for states acquiring and ceding territory. During the 19th Century NSW relinquished control of territory as needed for the self-government of Tas, SA, Vic and Qld. In the 20th Century NSW ceded the ACT and Jervis Bay to the control of the Commonwealth, which in turn subsequently established self-government for the ACT. NT has been variously part of NSW and SA before assuming it’s present day borders and self-government. South Australia and Queensland have also both had border adjustments before assuming their present day borders.

There is no logical reason to assume that all existing state borders are set in stone or that no new Australian states should now be created from territory ceded by a parent state. The Cohen and Nicholas Royal Commissions in the first half of the 20th Century both recommended the creation of a new state of New England in Northern NSW. It is now time for the question of self-government for New England to be revisited and for an honest and fair plebiscite to be conducted throughout Northern NSW. Other regions such as North Queensland may also have strong desires for self-government and should also be given this opportunity.

“Do you think that there are other ways of recognising the role of local government and enhancing its status, apart from constitutional change?”

Local government has little or no ability to plan for an entire region or even one metropolis, where there are multiple LGA’s that together make up a broader community. State government is required for matters of regional significance, rather than enhanced recognition of local government.

For example, the Newcastle City Council LGA has approximately 155,000 residents while neighbouring Lake Macquarie City Council LGA has 200,000 residents. The other three neighbouring LGA’s of Maitland, Cessnock and Port Stephens add almost another 200,000 people to the Lower Hunter population. Yet Newcastle, as the major CBD, bears the greatest responsibility for regional facilities which benefit the entire Newcastle region. For example, Number 1 Sports Ground, Newcastle Region Art Gallery, Newcastle Region Museum, Civic Theatre, Blackbutt Reserve are maintained by Newcastle City Council. The ratepayers of the city of Newcastle also bear the cost of maintaining public roads that service other state owned regional facilities such as John Hunter Hospital, Ausgrid Stadium, Broadmeadow Railway Station and Newcastle University.

Newcastle Airport, another regional facility is a partnership of Newcastle City Council and Port Stephens Shire Council. This is a rare example of what can be achieved when there is a regional focus. A New England state government with its’ own treasury, taxation base, public service and sharper northern focus could achieve so much more for Northern NSW.

There might be certain minimum criteria for identification of a particular region deserving of recognition as a proposed new state. For example there should be:

• a desire for self-government;
• a distinct regional identity (such as Hunter/New England and Northern NSW); and
• a population not less than the existing smallest state of Tasmania.

“Do you think that there are any implications beyond the benefits to local government that might result from the suggested changes to the Constitution?”

There are substantial implications which have the potential to change our system of government and make it more centralised, cumbersome and less responsible, with few obvious outweighing benefits.

States blame the Commonwealth for failing to provide sufficient funds for state programs while the Commonwealth blames the states for inefficient use of the funds provided. The addition of 560 local government bodies in this process could only exacerbate this.

Conclusion

For the reasons outlined above, I would not support any of the proposals in the discussion paper for recognition of local government. It would have the potential to fundamentally change the way that governments operate and interact in Australia. It is likely to lead to greater centralisation and Commonwealth control without enhancing the values of good government.

The provisions contained under Chapter 6 for creation of new states were included in the Constitution by our founding fathers to recognise and empower regions deserving of self-government and to enhance decentralisation. In more than a century since Federation we have lacked the vision, courage and commitment to use this mechanism for the benefit of regional Australia. Worse still, self-interested state capitals fearful of losing territory in NSW and Queensland have stymied progress towards creation of new states.

Chapter 6 requires no constitutional convention or amendment. All that is required is a commitment to the ideals of democracy and the UN Charter for self-determination, to which Australia is a signatory.

It is long overdue that significant regions with long held desires for self-government, such as Northern NSW, be given the opportunity to vote in a fair and balanced plebiscite in accordance with the conclusions of the Nicholas Royal Commissions and the principles of self-determination.

I urge the panel to broaden the discussion to include recommendations for creation of new states as needed to provide decentralised government and more equitable distribution of resources, infrastructure and services for the major regional populations of Australia.

Yours sincerely,
Gregory J. Howley,
B. Comm., CA, FPA, Reg. Tax Agent

Central Coast becomes official region

This heading may make you blink as it did me. The Central Coast not a region? 

A tweet from My Central Coast led me to this story from the Central Coast Express Advocate. 

It's official at last - the Central Coast is to be recognised as a separate region by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) from July 1.

Gosford and Wyong councils and the Central Coast NSW Business Chamber have welcomed the decision after years of lobbying by the community.

The coast will be recognised as a “statistical area 4”, the largest type of region below state level.

“Being included as a separate region is a great win for the region and the last significant classification required to get regional recognition for the Central Coast,” business chamber president Ken Baker said.

“We’ve proudly believed that the Central Coast deserves a better go from government and getting the right ABS data sets in place will help support our campaigns in the future.”

Gosford Mayor Laurie Maher said: “This is a victory for common sense considering that the coast has a population larger than Canberra and is expected to grow significantly over the coming decades,” Cr Maher said.

Wyong Mayor Doug Eaton said the recognition would place the coast in a better position to support its growth and development.

Mr Baker said the recognition would get its first big test with the Australian 2011 Census due to be collected later this year.

For the benefit of readers who don't know Australia, the Central Coast lies between Sydney and Lake Macquarie and the Hunter Valley. So it's just to the south of the traditional New England or Northern NSW boundaries.

I have often spoken of the way that official structures and classifications have on-ground effects. Clearly, the Central Coast is and always has been a region in geographic terms. However, it has suffered greatly, as has the broader New England, from it's statistical treatment.

For ABS purposes, it has been treated as part of the Sydney Statistical Division. For many planning purposes, it has simply been added to Sydney. Indeed, the boundary of Metropolitan Sydney, the way that areas are treated for planning purposes, has been progressively pushed north to include the Lower Hunter. Not only does this ignore one region, the Central Coast, but it actually bifurcates a second, the Hunter.

So long as planning centres in Sydney, areas like the Central Coast or the Lower Hunter will be treated as outliers of the metro centre. That is why many in the Hunter want the the present Sydney city rail system broken up to create a Hunter Valley equivalent.

Many in the Central Coast had reservations about the creation of a new state in Northern NSW because they feared that it would lock them out, lock them further into Sydney. The reverse is true.

In reality, the links between the Hunter and Central Coast mean that with the creation of a New England state, the Sydney Government would be forced by the very existence of New England to look at the Central Coast in new ways. We have seen this already in other border areas. The position of the Central Coast would actually be greatly strengthened.    

Select Committee on reform of the Australian Federation

I am afraid that this one passed me by, something that I regret, until Noric Dilanchian sent me the law Council of Australia submission. I quote from the Inquiry web site: 

On 17 June 2010 the Senate referred the following matter to the Select Committee on the Reform of the Australian Federation for inquiry and report.

That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on the Reform of the Australian Federation, be appointed at the conclusion of the Select Committee on the National Broadband Network, to:
(a) inquire into and report by 17 November 2010 on key issues and priorities for the reform of relations between the three levels of government within the Australian federation; and
(b) explore a possible agenda for national reform and to consider ways it can best be implemented in relation to, but not exclusively, the following matters: 
(i) the distribution of constitutional powers and responsibilities between the Commonwealth and the states (including territories),
(ii) financial relations between federal, state and local governments,
(iii) possible constitutional amendment, including the recognition of local government,
(iv) processes, including the Council of Australian Governments, and the referral of powers and procedures for enhancing cooperation between the various levels of Australian government, and
(v) strategies for strengthening Australia's regions and the delivery of services through regional development committees and regional grant programs.

The closing date for submissions passed some time ago. However, I wanted to report it because I know that a lot of New England people are interested in constitutional reform. I will try to do a report on the various submissions received a little later. In the meantime, feel free to browse the Committee web site!   

Wednesday Forum: reforming the Federation

The last Wednesday Forum, Wednesday Forum: New England's greatest needs, generated some very good ideas, including a remarkably good comment from Greg from Newcastle. I will pick up some of the other ideas in later posts. Here I just want to focus on Greg. He wrote:

I think that we all recognize that our federal system of government is not working well. Some even believe that it is in the emergency ward on life support. We all want change in the way that government in Australia is delivered but we have no clear idea of what it should look like. We are too blinkered by the paradigms of the 20th Century.

Although it is my region that I am primarily concerned with, my wish list is not just relevant to, Newcastle, New England or even NSW, but for the whole of Australia, regional Australia especially.

To a large extent our problems are rooted in the same cause. That cause is a dominant central government which is now, to all intents and purposes, more a unitary rather than a federal government. It has total fiscal hegemony over lower levels of government raising more than 80% of all taxes. Yet it is the states and local councils which are the primary providers of government services, but without the independent means to deliver. They are financially coupled to the chariot wheels of Canberra which has formed an expensive double bureaucracy.

How can Canberra make and implement good policy decisions for Newcastle, Armidale, Port Macquarie or any of the other cities and towns of New England? Of course it cannot because it's policies are, of necessity one size fits all. Australia is too vast and it's communities too diverse and widely spread. Only states, regions and communities can best make those policy decisions at a local or regional level.

So my wish list is not specific to New England, but it is essential for New England to prosper and achieve it's potential. REAL power must be devolved back to lower levels of government (both state and local). The Commonwealth must observe it's proper powers under sec 51 of the constitution instead of forever making incursions into areas which were never intended to be part of it's domain.

In practice this means that the Commonwealth must reduce it's fiscal dominance and thereby it's undue influence over states, regions and communities to allow local people to make policy decisions as appropriate for them and their communities. In other words, it must pass a great deal of it's taxing powers back to lower tiers of government and exit policy making for regional domestic matters.

We need a new constitutional convention where we can debate and decide what our federation should look like, the number of states, their boundaries and the responsibilities and taxing powers of each tier of government. At the moment our federation is moving ever closer to a unitary system and the results are obvious - choking capitals and failing regions. Our way of life is under threat.

The independents find themselves in a unique position in Australian political history. It is within their power to force a constitutional convention where we can renew and reshape our federation to breath new life into it for the challenges of the 21st Century.

This is what I would like to see from the New England independents. It would be the greatest of tragedies if they squandered this opportunity to help shape New England and indeed Australia for the better.

Will history remember them as visionaries with great purpose? Or simply as political grand standers who had 15 minutes of fame? The ball is in their court.

Wow! You don't have to agree with all Greg's points to recognise that he has mounted a powerful argument, so powerful that I have picked it up in my Armidale Express column to be published today.  You see, even if you disagree with him, Greg has captured something that many Australians' feel: our Federation is not working properly, nor are current approaches likely to fix this.

Do you support the idea, as I do, of a new constitutional convention focused on our Federation? What do you believe should be included to ensure that the Federation properly represents all parts of Australia?

A new state for New England

Now that the combination of the independents with a resurgence of North Queensland new state interest has put new states back on the agenda, I have watched with a degree of bemusement as the same old arguments against are re-cycled.

It is now 150 years since the first attempt to create a new state in Northern New South Wales. From 1915, there were waves of sustained agitation for New England self-government. The name New England itself was adopted at a convention in Maitland in 1932. This agitation forced, among other things, two Royal Commissions in NSW, a Commonwealth Royal Commission into the constitution and the formation of an all-party Commonwealth Parliamentary inquiry into the constitution. The agitation also led, among other things, to the creation first of the Armidale Teachers College and then the New England University College to provide tertiary education for the North. 

In 1967, a plebiscite on self-government for Northern New South Wales was just defeated following fierce opposition by the then Labor Party in NSW. The Party was concerned that it would become the permanent opposition in Northern New South Wales.

The graphic shows the back of a New England New State Movement envelope. These are the boundaries as recommended in 1935 by the Nicholas Royal Commission.

The New England New State Movement collapsed in the bitter infighting that followed the 1967 plebiscite defeat. There have been a number of attempts since then to revive the cause, but these failed to grab. However, over the last six months, we have seen the slow emergence of a more structured campaign, with the drive coming from the Hunter.

Some years ago, I said to Jack Arnold (a fellow supporter of self-government for New England) that our biggest problem in reviving the New England New State Movement lay in the almost complete loss of folk memory over the years since 1967. In essence, we had lost our history. That was part of the reason that I began this blog in April 2006. I wanted to preserve and re-present the New England story, to provide a vehicle for the re-articulation of common concerns. Since then I have blogged away with a combination of current events, Northern history, new state stories and straight Northern promotion.

For those who know nothing of the New England Movement, History of the New England New State Movement 2 - defining New England, provides something of a short introduction.

This flier sets out some of the arguments used by the Movement to justify its cause. They remain valid today.

One of the problems now, and this applies in North Queensland as well, is that, in forgetting our past, the arguments now begin again from scratch. Listening to the media commentary, I felt a strong sense of deja vu. Our opponents are using just the same arguments! Just as bad, supporters are also reinventing the wheel. I have heard very little from North Queensland that references current activities back to the past.

Certain things have changed in the 43 years since the plebiscite defeat. New England's relative structural decline has continued, despite population growth along the coastal strip. The area has become more fragmented. Commonwealth-state financial relations have changed.

Perhaps the most important change since 1967 is that we now know that most of the arguments used to support the No case have been invalidated by time.

Labor would not have been in a permanent minority. Fear of loss of the preferential access to the Sydney milk market that swung the vote in the dairy areas of the lower Hunter and around is no longer relevant. Those farmers lost that access anyway and quite quickly. The arguments that our needs could be met by the Sydney Government have been invalidated by time. They haven't been.

Another thing that has changed is that we now have a far better understanding of the way existing systems work against us. I explored this a little in my Why I Remain a New England New Stater series. It is no coincidence that some of us like me or Paul Barratt remain new staters. It's not just our emotional ties to the North, it's also the fact that as former senior public servants we know how the system works. In addition, my own work on the history of New England threw a clear lime-light on the gains

As new state support began to increase in New England, old arguments began to emerge. There was also a strong interest among new Hunter supporters in the Movement's past. It quickly became clear that there was a simple need to document and explain past arguments, leading to my still to be completed New State Arguments series. Even at this point, I hope that you can see that the arguments now suddenly put forward against are both old and in some ways simply crass.  

The next photo shows a new state float from Newcastle in the lead up to the 1967 plebiscite. The Young Northerners Club was a youth group that began in Newcastle and then spread north.

Even at this level of detail, I hope that I have demonstrated that the New England self-government cause is not new; that the arguments for and against have been well thrashed out in the past; and, most importantly, that the desire to create new states is not a strange idiosyncratic phenomenon, but reflects deeply long held views that reflect both a sense of regional identity and a desire to reform the Governmental systems in this country to better meet the needs of the people.

The next photo looks like just a lunch group, and indeed it was. However, it was not without significance.

This is the first formal meeting of the re-emerging Northern or New England New State Movement. The people present come from different parts of the Lower Hunter, Armidale and Sydney.

Local Government has been driving the move in North Queensland. In New England, we are working bottom up, a much slower process. Not one member of this little gathering had in fact met prior to the lunch. Our links were formed by the internet.

The sense of enthusiasm was palpable. Indeed, we all had cameras because we wanted to record the event!

The outcome of the meeting was the formalisation of a steering committee with members across Northern NSW to guide the overall reformation of the Movement, along with the creation of a Hunter Valley Branch. Small stuff I know, but when you have lost your past you have to start small!

From our collective viewpoints, just having people to talk to who shared the concern for Northern self-government and for Northern development was quite wonderful.

So far, we have been keeping the discussions somewhat below the radar.  From my viewpoint as the group historian, it has been wonderful having people who want to learn about our past to provide a base for our future. We have to educate ourselves and re-create agreement on common issues before we can launch in a hugely public way.This is actually not easy, because so much has been lost.

The next graphic shows part of the original anthem of the New England New State Movement.

I suppose like most anthems, it has a rah-rah element. yet I remember  how moved I was as a sixteen year old when I first heard it.

I was an usher at the Armidale convention that launched Operation Seventh State, the large campaign that culminated in the lost 1967 plebiscite. The lights dimmed, the spotlight shone on the New England flag, while an operatic singer sang the anthem.

Today we are building from a much smaller base. Yet the idea of working for New England, fighting for New England, fighting for our liberty still resonates. We want freedom within the Federation, freedom to do our own thing and to make our own mistakes.

None of us are naive. We know how hard it is to get real change. But if you don't try, nothing happens. In trying to reform the movement, our present objectives are two-fold:

• By networking people across New England, we hope to create a common focus that will force Governments to take New England needs into account. Here we are trying to overcome the factional pottage based marginal seats approach that simply fragments.
• We also hope to make the achievement of another plebiscite a major issue at the next NSW State elections.        

If you would like to join us in discussing New England's future, there are several things that you can do:

• you can email us at newstate@deldaimax.com
• you can write to us at New State Movement, PO Box 195, Islington 2296
• you can join our Facebook page.

Bryan Pape runs for Senate (NSW)

This morning youngest came in to tell me that one of our friends had decided to run for the senate for NSW. This led us to check all the candidate lists. I then discovered that Bryan Pape was running.

No doubt I should have known this, but it had escaped my attention.

Bryan doesn't have a snow flakes chance in hell of getting up. He is running as a single person, so to vote for him you have to vote below the line. Then, clearly, he does not have a lot of organisational backing. All this said, he is worth considering for a first preference vote.

Bryan is a strong new New England new stater and lawyer who has been campaigning for constitutional reform for some time. Central to his argument is that our constitution has become distorted by the imbalance in financial powers.  As Professor Geoffrey Sawer once said: “those who spend, don’t have to justify the taxation and those who tax don’t have to justify the spending”. Bryan wants this clarified.

In recent times, Bryan is best known for bringing a case to the High Court challenging the Rudd Government's stimulus payments. He was not opposed to the stimulus payments as such, rather to the way in which it was being done. He lost the case, but the High Court did put something of a warning shot across the bows of the Commonwealth on the assumption that it could spend money however it liked.

As I said, Bryan can't win. Further, voting below the line is a pain for many because it involves numbering all the squares. Still, a vote for him remains worth considering.

Drummond's bio continues 4 - Towards Centre Stage: Public life 1922-1927

Drummond's life 4 - Towards Centre Stage: Public life 1922-1927 continues my biography of David Drummond. It covers NSW politics, including the transformation of the Progressive Party to the Country Party, fights over railways and the Sydney Harbour Bridge Bill; along with continued new state agitation at state and national level, including the initially disastrous Cohen Royal Commission and the further articulation of the Movement's constitutional position. 

New State arguments 7 - the constitutional position

At the time the Australian Federation was formed, the existing state structure was not seen as fixed in stone for all time. For that reason, the Australian constitution includes specific provisions that allow for the admission and governance of new territories, for alteration of state boundaries, for mergers between states or parts of states and for the subdivision of existing states.

The relevant section reads:   

Chapter VI. New States.

121. The Parliament may admit to the Commonwealth or establish new States, and may upon such admission or establishment make or impose such terms and conditions, including the extent of representation in either House of the Parliament, as it thinks fit.

122. The Parliament may make laws for the government of any territory surrendered by any State to and accepted by the Commonwealth, or of any territory placed by the Queen under the authority of and accepted by the Commonwealth, or otherwise acquired by the Commonwealth, and may allow the representation of such territory in either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit.

123. The Parliament of the Commonwealth may, with the consent of the Parliament of a State, and the approval of the majority of the electors of the State voting upon the question, increase, diminish, or otherwise alter the limits of the State, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed on, and may, with the like consent, make provision respecting the effect and operation of any increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation to any State affected.

124. A new State may be formed by separation of territory from a State, but only with the consent of the Parliament thereof, and a new State may be formed by the union of two or more States or parts of States, but only with the consent of the Parliaments of the States affected.

Since the Federation was formed, these provisions have been used a number of times.

Within Australia, they provide the basis for the governance of the Australian Capital and Northern Territories. Both remain territories rather than states. The NT itself was a territory of South Australia at the time of Federation. In 1911, control was transferred to the Commonwealth by parallel legislation in both jurisdictions.

Externally to Australia, they provide the basis for the acquisition and administration of external territories. In 1933, for example, land in Antarctica claimed by the Empire was transferred to Australia by Imperial order and accepted by an Act of the Australian Parliament. In another example, in 1955 Australia accepted responsibility for the Cocos Keeling Islands via parallel legislation passed in the British and Australian Parliaments. 

While the territories' power has been exercised, the new states or subdivision power has not. Further, its exact meaning has not been tested. However, on the words alone, a referendum in the state or states involved is required plus parallel legislation in the jurisdictions involved.  

Given that a formal process exists for the creation of new states, the problems involved have always been political rather than constitutional. There is no present mechanism that allows for the creation of new states without the effective consent of the governing party in that state, regardless of the views of the people. Governments in power have proved very reluctant to do anything that would diminish their power. For that reason, all the new state movements over time have campaigned for constitutional change.

One of the odd things about the arguments put by those in power against subdivision is that they are a bit like the compulsive sinner who pleads with God for help to reform, but not just yet! Those arguing against specific new state proposals have often said things like there will be new states, but the times not right or this specific case doesn't make sense. It is, in fact, very hard to argue a general case that existing state structures must be fixed for all time. It doesn't make a great deal of sense.

We saw an interesting example of this a week or so back in Queensland. I quote from the Courier Mail of 27 May 2010:

NORTH Queensland should not be allowed to break off into another state, because it would cost the state on the football field, Treasurer Andrew Fraser says.

Premier Anna Bligh and her senior ministers faced a public forum today in which they were questioned on topics ranging from daylight saving to abortion.

But in a question on the perennial issue of whether north Queensland should be made a separate state, the north Queensland-born treasurer and rugby league fan was not a supporter.

Mr Fraser said the breadth and diversity of the state was its great strength.

"It allows us to beat NSW at State of Origin as well, which is worth pointing out," he said.

"... JT (Johnathan Thurston) and others all hail from the north and we'd be pretty foolish to cast that aside."

Queensland beat their NSW rivals 28-24 in the first Origin game for 2010 last night in which Thurston won man of the match.

On a serious note, Mr Fraser said Australia's state boundaries could move in the next century, as settlement patterns changed.

Here you see the usual pattern of dismissal along with the sop of possible change later.

Do the political problems involved make change impossible? The answer to that is no. No political entity can preserve itself in the long term if a significant proportion of its population demands change strongly enough.

Had New England voted yes at the 1967 plebiscite (and it was pretty close), the NSW Government would have been forced to respond. At a political level, it might have tried to temporise and delay by offering other forms of concessions and benefits.

Of itself, this is not to be sneezed at. However, the Government would also have been forced to address the next round issues, including whether a NSW referendum was required, as well as the practical issues involved in separation.

In 1967, a NSW referendum might well have failed. I am not sure that is true today for reasons I will set out in another post. However, if New England again voted yes even though NSW as a whole voted no, another set of dynamics would have been created that would have maintained the pressure for change. This would probably have led to increased devolution of power as an intermediate step. 

Significant change takes time.

The Scottish Nationalist Party was formed in 1934, although its predecessors were older. At the time, the idea of a Scottish Parliament seemed a long way a way. In 1978, the then Labour Government passed an Act providing for the establishment of a Scottish Parliament subject to a referendum. While a majority of those voting voted yes, this failed to get the required absolute proportion. In May 1997, the Blair Labour Government was elected on a platform promising another referendum. This one passed, and Scotland gained its Parliament.

In New England, the New State Movement collapsed after the 1967 result and the bitter in-fighting at the NSW election that followed. The pressure stopped to the ultimate detriment of all New England. Further, since the New England Movement as the most powerful movement had been the main national driver for the other separation movements, the whole cause declined.

Yet today the issue is clearly coming back onto the agenda in New England and elsewhere. The pressure is coming back.

Postscript

In comments, Mark pointed to a very useful paper by UNE's Bryan Pape, Federalism for the Second Century, that summarises the changes that have taken place in the constitution, discusses constitutional principles and argues the case for constitutional change including especially new states.

Mark also pointed to a story in the Australian of 6 April 2010 in which Percy Allan, former head of the NSW Treasury, is quoted as arguing the case for more states. In part support, Mr Allan points to the difficulties he experienced in NSW in trying to devolve more power to the regions.   

New State arguments 3 - geographic basis of government

The new state movements throughout Australia challenged the existing basis of Government. In doing so, they faced a major challenge from those committed to the status quo.

It is a hard fact that all existing political institutions will defend themselves by all the means in their power, supported by those who for reason of sentiment or self-interest favour the status quo. The new state movements were required to develop arguments that would explain their case to a broader audience on emotional and logical grounds, that would challenge the arguments put forward by those opposing change. 

This led the New England Movement to develop the concept of the geographic basis of Government, a view later amplified by Professor Macdonald Holmes, Professor of Geography at Sydney University, in The Geographical Basis of Government (1944).

There were considerable links between Macdonald Holmes and the Movement's leadership. Macdonald Holmes saw geography as  'the study of land in relation to people'. This fed into Movement thinking and not just at the constitutional level.

Many of the senior Movement people had a deep interest in the conservation as well as the development of the land and in the application of science to conservation and primary production. In addition to the establishment of the New England National Park, this interest manifested itself not just on farm, but in the provision of direct financial support, including donation of land, to the University of New England to encourage the development of rural science. Macdonald Holmes himself promoted techniques such as contour ploughing as a way of reducing erosion, while maintaining moisture.

The idea behind the geographical basis of government was a simple one: geography helped determine the pattern of life; a geographically linked area was more likely to have the community of interest required for successful government.

NSW contained very distinct regions with limited commonality of interest. Further, it was dominated by one population centre with its own distinct interests that were very different from those holding elsewhere in the state. The inevitable result was a tendency to bad government in which the centre would tend to override, ignore or be unaware of the interests of the other parts of NSW.

By contrast, New England had a higher degree of community of interest in geographical terms because it consisted of the Tablelands plus the rivers originating on those Tablelands to the east, west and south, geographically linked entities. Further, those linkages in combination with its smaller size would made it easier for Government to understand and respond to community needs.

Like all simple concepts, the idea of the geographical basis of Government can be challenged by exception or argued in different ways. As an example, what do you do if history or particular aspects of geography have led to very different peoples occupying the same territory? Further, if New England has a commonality dictated by geography, wouldn't this be truer still of, say, the Northern Rivers or the Hunter Valley?

New England's geography has been central to its history.

The various names used to describe it during European times - the North, Northern Districts, Northern Provinces and New England are all geographical descriptors. The use of the word North defines location in regard to Sydney. The adoption of the name New England, the name originally applied just to the Tablelands that form New England's central geographic core, replaces a Sydney related descriptor with another geographical term.

During the long period of Aboriginal occupation of New England, the area's geography created a pattern of east-west and north south linkages and movements. This pattern was subsequently replicated during European times. The creation of Queensland put a political boundary through the top end of the unity, but otherwise left the pattern unchanged.

Within New England, the combination of history with geography made for divisions. This held true in Aboriginal times and is equally true today. However, the underlying entity keeps peeping through. If you map all the various and changing boundaries used for administrative purposes by the NSW Government and its various agencies and then overlay them on the New England new state area, New England still exists, however dimly.

NSW, by contrast, is a political not geographic entity. Outside history and constitutional structures, there is very little to unite. What unity that does exist is imposed. Further, that unity has become increasingly fragmented, a process that I described in The fragmentation of NSW.

If you want to test this, have a think about about NSW symbols. What symbolic things or even common ideas unite NSW? State of origin in the League is the one most commonly cited, but this only holds in part of the state.

Tourism is one of the most striking practical examples of problems that arise as a consequence, something that I dealt with in Why I remain New England New Stater 6 - conflicts in NSW tourism branding. Tourism is all about perception. It is very hard to sell NSW as a tourism destination because there is no unifying element. In tourism terms, if you ask people what NSW is you either get a complete blank or a list of specific localities or attractions.

This post is one of a series discussing issues associated with the creation of a New England New State. If you would like to look at the whole series, you can either search on new state arguments or go to the introductory post where you will find a full list of posts.  

New State arguments 1 - introduction

In discussing the renewed calls for state government in North Queensland, I said in part:

I can understand why some delegates at the NQLGA meeting suggested that more detail was required to give the idea (of self government) credibility. It's not that the information and arguments are not there. It's just that all the detail of past arguments has been lost in historical terms.

Then in a comment on Belshaw's World - scoping New England’s environmental wars Mark wrote:

I think back when I was a young apprentice and I once heard an old toolmaker speak about the failed referendum over the proposed "New State".
I'm glad that I stumbled across your blog Mr Belshaw. The more that do read, the more I'm sure will see that there can be an alternative to what we have now.

It is now 47 years since the loss of the New England New State plebiscite and the effective collapse of the New England New State Movement in the sometimes bitter in-fighting that followed. By the time that Mark was born, that loss was 12 years in the past. By the time that my eldest daughter was born, that loss was 20 years in the past. You can see why I say that the detail of past arguments has been lost in historical terms.
I have begun outlining some of the history of the Movement to help bring this part of our history alive.

However, there is a broader issue.

Creation of new states involves a mix of constitutional, technical, political and public policy issues. It also involves imagination, the act of imagining what might be done and done in new ways in a new constitutional arrangement freed from the trammels of the past.

In 1915 in Grafton, a public meeting was called to protest the decision by the Holman Government to remove the free steam ferry Helen that had linked Grafton and South Grafton. Attended by around 250 people, the meeting unanimously carried a motion suggesting that the time had now come for the North to consider separation, either alone or in connection with the southern portion of Queensland. While it would be still be a little while before sustained new state agitation emerged, that meeting marked the effective start of twentieth century new state agitation.

Over the 52 years between the Helen incident and the plebiscite, the arguments for and against new states were fought out.

While often dismissed by the metropolitan press, we sometimes forget that papers like the Sydney Morning Herald are just as parochial as their country cousins, the new state supporters had sufficient firepower to challenge opponents on an intellectual as well as political level. Their support came not just from local or regional activists, but also from city based academics, professionals and writers, as well as staff from the newly created New England University College and then University of New England.

Wearing my historian's hat, I am not a great believer in the lessons of history as such. However, I do believe that those who forget the past are inclined to repeat the mistakes of the past. In this context, I can't help noticing how discussions on issues such as constitutional change or regional development over the last thirty years have consistently ignored previous discussions.

Things change.

Since 1967 economic and demographic change, together with changes in the balance of power between Commonwealth and States, means that some of the things that a New England State might have done in 1967 are no longer possible. The power is no longer there, while the barriers to effective regional development have grown.

To my mind, this does not invalidate the idea of new states in general nor of self-government for New England in particular. However, it does mean that past arguments have to be tempered in light of the changes since.

Taking all this into account, I thought that it might be interesting and helpful if I explored past discussions on  the constitutional, technical, political and public policy issues associated with new states. Some of it's pretty dry stuff, but it will go some way towards answering the concerns of some delegates at the NQLGA meeting that more detail was required to give the idea of separation credibility. The detail is there. We have just forgotten!

Other posts in this series: 

• New State arguments 2 - no states or new states
• New State arguments 3 - geographic basis of government
• New State arguments 4 - party politics
• New State arguments 5 - the power of imagination
• New State arguments 6 -sharing the benefits
• New State arguments 7 - the constitutional position
• New State arguments 8 - why Sydney needs out from NSW
• New State arguments 9 - benefits of self-government
• New State arguments 10 - technical issues 1
• New State arguments 11 - the importance of a dedicated public service
• New State arguments 12 - the importance of history

Fragmentation of NSW revisited

In a comment on The fragmentation of NSW, Jacus wrote:

As a Novocastrian, in exile in Canberra, I agree with a lot of what you say, and would be interested in hearing more. Especially in terms of how such a change could take place.

A simple question, but one not easy to answer.

At a first level, the subdivision of NSW into new states would help, as would the very regeneration of new state agitation itself. However, the fragmentation that has taken place in NSW affects its parts as well, including New England. So there is an issue here.

The processes involved in the subdivision of NSW are not especially complicated in constitutional terms, although a number of practical issues do arise. The real problem has always been politics. That is why the various new state movements have argued for constitutional changes to make it easier to overcome the politics.

If we work on the basis that subdivision will take time, then the question arises as to how the governance of NSW as presently constituted might be reformed. What might be done to make the existing system work better?

A number of things could be done here. However, they will not be easy to achieve for the same reason that subdivision itself is difficult. They require the central government in Sydney to devolve power.

I will attempt to provide an answer to Jacus, but first I need to complete my analysis of New England's changing demography.   

Regional councils vs new states

The Australian carried an interesting story reporting on the results of a survey on attitudes towards the various levels of Government and associated issues of constitutional change.

Overall, 75 per cent favour reform of the present system - nine points up on 2008. Although there is no consensus on what should change, 42 per cent are attracted to the idea of regional governments, which would be bigger than local councils but smaller than state governments.

I find it interesting that two (NSW and Queensland) of the three states ranked lowest in performance terms are also those states that have had traditionally the strongest new state movements.

While the figures are all over the place and continue to indicate the difficulty of bringing about constitutional change, they also suggest a growing willingness to actually discuss change.

Traditionally, those who have supported new states have also supported constitutional reform. However, they have also had two concerns.

The first is the size of the proposed states. Too small, and their capacity to actually do things will be constrained. Too large, and we get the NSW/Queensland problem repeated. 

The second are the powers and finances to be attached to those states. Because one of the traditional drivers for new state support has been the constant willingness of Sydney, Brisbane or Canberra to override local and regional interests whenever it suited them, new staters want new states with constitutionally protected powers rather than regional councils with devolved powers that can be removed or overridden at any time.  

Over its long history, the New England New State Movement played a major role in constitutional debate. At state level, we have the Cohen and Nicholas Royal Commissions. At Federal level, the Movement forced the creation of the Peden Royal Commission and then, later, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Inquiry into the Constitution.

All this means that most of the issues we are dealing with now have been thrashed out at considerable length, with New England history and thought forming a distinct and important thread.

I know that constitutional history and issues can be pretty eye-glazing stuff. Yet if we don't take into account past thought and arguments, we are highly likely to get worst possible outcomes.