Imploding federalism in Australia - Are there lessons for Sri Lanka?

Dr. Dasarath Jayasuriya, Chair, Centre for Sustainable Future Melbourne, Australia

Solution : Advocates of a federal solution to Sri Lanka's terrorist problem are dusting cobwebs off their trench coats and actively oiling their foreign funded Trojan Horses to launch another attack on the unitary nature of Sri Lanka.

Most overt proponents of the Federal solution withdrew temporarily from the foray when President Rajapaksa was elected democratically by the people of Sri Lanka to be its fifth President in 2005.

However, one of the exceptions was the former head of the TULF, Anandasangaree, who consistently advocated a Federal type solution to negate the LTTE threat that distinctively advantaged the Tamil community by artificially merging the Northern and Eastern provinces to form a quasi Eelam.

Opponents of the Federal type solution hardly receive a fair opportunity to express their views publicly, with media often turning a blind eye to their views.

Hence it is almost impossible to ventilate any misgiving one has about a Federal type solution to Sri Lanka's terrorist problem, without being classified as an "extreme Sinhala Buddhist", a member of the JHU or a card-carrying member of the JVP of which I am none.

Hence, I have refrained from presenting a critique of the ill-conceived 'Vitharana Plan', the blueprint for Balkanising Sri Lanka. Rather, I believe it is best that I share the current status of play and the machinations that are presently unfolding in Australia, a Federated nation since 1901.

Federation

The federation of Australia was the process by which the six separate British colonies of New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia formed a federation to give birth to the Australian nation. By force of the Constitution of Australia on January 1, 1901, the Australian colonies became the Commonwealth of Australia, of which they became component States.

Early efforts to bring about federation in the 1850s and 1860s were dogged by the lack of popular support for the movement. A number of conventions were held during the 1890s to develop a constitution for the Commonwealth. Sir Henry Parkes, Premier of New South Wales, was instrumental in this process. Fiji and New Zealand were originally part of this process, but wisely decided to opt out.

Currently there is significant debate in Australia about the benefits of federation and the repercussions of the tensions between the Commonwealth (the Central government) and the States (former colonies) such as Victoria, the one that I have lived for the past 25 years.

The Prime Minister in waiting, the Treasurer Peter Costello has repeatedly stated that the biggest challenge this natural resource rich nation faces in the decade to come is the redefining of the powers between the Centre (Commonwealth) and the individual States.

He went on to eloquently articulate that history is littered with lost opportunities due to the squabbling between fiercely parochial States, and the Commonwealth entrusted to deliver the big picture vision: a multicultural, economically prosperous, socially equitable and environmentally sustainable Australia.

Costello's prophesy is rapidly coming true with increasing tension between the States and the Commonwealth evidenced by polarised views on managing water resources, funding health and well-being, delivering primary and higher education and bedding down industrial law, to name a few.

These tensions have forced Australia to reconsider the merits or otherwise of a federated Nation, questioning the benefits that have been delivered to its citizens by the adopted governance structure burdened with the Commonwealth-State tensions.

The commonwealth leader of the Labour Opposition Kevin Rudd has stated that the Commonwealth-State 'bun' fight (as he states it) costs Australian citizens around four Billion dollars annually.

Managing water resources

Water wars have literally begun in Australia. As I write these words the Premiers of the States are negotiating with the Prime Minister to thrash out a $10Billion deal for the States to rescind powers vested in them under the Australian constitution (Clause 100) to manage waterways either originating or flowing through their States.

There is universal agreement that the Murray-Darling river, the bread bowl and the economic powerhouse of Australia is dying with low flows, algal blooms, fish kills, excessive irrigation, urban and power extractions combining to form a deadly cocktail toxic to the environment and sustainable agriculture.

The management of the river executed through the Murray-Darling Basin Commission has not resulted in sustainable outcomes. With the over extractions for irrigation and the closing of the Murray mouth to the sea in Adelaide from time to time, it is sad to see the once mighty Murray River reduced to a dribble.

Some of the upstream States selfishly optimise their economic return whilst fellow Australians suffer in downstream States stifled by lack of water for fit for purpose use.

States such as Victoria that manage the Murray water well suffer from being sandwiched between inefficient States such as New South Wales and South Australia. This is the legacy that federation has delivered over the last 107 years to the Australian Nation and the key States abutting the once mighty Murray River.

The Prime Minister John Howard has offered $10Billion to the States to rescind their rights to managing and owning Murray-Darling water bestowed on them under Clause 100 in the Australian constitution and reverse federation (somewhat) by abrogating the State's rights back to the Commonwealth. Although there is considerable acrimony, the discussions are progressing with most of the venom limited to verbal attacks by the States bartering to get the best outcome for their respective State.

Would we like to see the majestic Mahaweli River carved up between a number of States (Central, North Central and Eastern) under a Federal system or managed under the Central Government delivering optimal benefits to all Sri Lankans? Under the Federal scenario it would not be long before the most downstream province (the Eastern) starts screaming blue murder seeking more water for its development.

It would not be long before the North Central province, the bread bowl of Sri Lanka is attacked violently by the federated Easterners seeking more water while the Central province, where the river originates holds everyone to ransom wanting to build more dams to maximise economic return to their own constituency.

Perhaps, given limited arable land, the federated Central Province may decide to sell the water to the highest paying bidder to maximise economic return.

This will deliver economic mayhem to the downstream provinces North-Central and Eastern. Under a Federal system, I can only visualise an apocalyptic outcome rather than durable peace as evidenced by the current shenanigans associated with sharing Murray water resources taking place in federated Australia.

One can argue that rules and regulations could be written around the management and the sharing of Mahaweli waters, but it would not be long before the federated Tigers violently attack the North-Central Province in search of more water claiming its essential for developing the East, or perhaps even the North.

We should not forget that the proponents of a Federal form of governance are promoting it as the panacea for solving the current Tiger terrorist problem. My thesis is that a federated devolution structure will exacerbate the sharing of natural resources such as water and mineral resources further and pave the way for eventual separation.

Consistent with current practice, the benefits of natural resources must be shared equitably among all citizenry sans any geographic bise based on the province that one lives.

Managing public health

Australia's health sector is struggling to keep pace with comparable developed nations in the Commonwealth such as Canada, UK and New Zealand. Often communities requiring the services complain of the long waiting lists at public hospitals for elective surgery.

There are also numerous complaints about the lack of vacant hospital beds close to where people live, thus requiring patients to travel substantial distances from their homes to ensure quality treatment, inconveniencing visiting family.

Most of the public hospitals request those patients who could go home over the weekends to do so (provided their health is not compromised) as there are insufficient number of nurses to keep all the beds open.

Public hospitals are hamstrung by budgetary constraints and as such, unable to fund extra nurses to service beds over the weekends. Complaints from the public are not well received either by the State Governments or the Commonwealth.

Whilst the Commonwealth insists that they have allocated the States record budgets for health, the States complain that the budgets have shrunk in real terms. The long-suffering public is disinterested in the tensions between the Commonwealth and the States. Their interests begin and end with good quality services provided by hospitals.

No one knows where the buck stops with each party pointing at the other for the poor service quality. Why should Sri Lanka knowingly embrace a flawed Federal system that would further dilute Sri Lanka's health services that are bursting at the seams as it is?

Funding schools and higher education

Similar experiences are faced when one discusses higher education and funding for schools. The Universities are the responsibility of the States and are co-funded by the States and the Commonwealth.

Tertiary places are increasingly in high demand, with the enter score (similar to the Z score in Sri Lanka) for popular courses such as Medicine and Law reaching stratospheric levels.

The Universities complain that the Commonwealth has not provided them with adequate funding to increase the number of tertiary places for these popular courses and that they should be blamed for the current predicament.

The Commonwealth on the other hand recently released a discussion paper demonstrating that they had actually provided the States with the additional funding and that some of the Universities had wasted the money by developing courses which have minimal student demand.

The removal of the compulsory union fee charged from students for providing non-academic auxiliary services such as parking, sports and recreation facilities is a good example of the Commonwealth-State tussle. The Howard Liberal Government (the Commonwealth) is ideologically against compulsory unionism and has taken steps to dismantle it at every opportunity even at the work places where unions are most effective.

Thus, it was no surprise that the Commonwealth passed legislation negating the need for Universities to collect compulsory union fees.

This was done whilst the States screamed that they would suffer from revenue shortfalls and that as the authority responsible for running the universities, they would have to either cut services or charge students for providing them.

Do you think whether the students or the parents cared one tuppence who funded the Universities? All what they wanted as parents were a decent education at an affordable cost for their children.

The end result is that this financial year (2007), different States reacted to the funding shortfalls differently. Whilst Victoria refrained from covering the full shortfall, the State of NSW Government covered it in full, as an election was just looming around the corner at that time in March.

The firsthand experience is that my nephew's annual car parking fee at Monash University increased 350%, from $70 to close to $250. Are these poor students responsible for the Commonwealth - State funding battle?

Industrial relations and wages accord

The Labour States in Australia favour collective bargaining for setting wages for a majority of workers.

When Bob Hawke (and later Paul Keating) was the Labour Party leader and the Prime Minister, the Commonwealth complimented the decentralised wage model by having an industrial accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), the peak body of all trade unions.

The current Liberal Howard Government favours individual agreements negotiated bilaterally between the employer and the employee based on rewarding productivity.

The recently introduced Work Choices legislation by the Commonwealth has been challenged in the Supreme Court by some of the Labour States. There is 'no cigar' for second guessing who pays for lawyers from both sides of the argument (the Commonwealth as well as the States). It's the poor tax payers of the land. The union movement lead by the ACTU has been protesting vociferously against individual contracts replacing collective wage agreements.

Individual contracts and Work Choices threaten the basic fabric of unionism empowering and favouring the employer (and sometimes the individual) over the unionised workforce.

The industrial law tensions between the Commonwealth and the States have confused the workforce, driven a wedge between the employers and the employees and adversely affected a sense of nationhood and productivity through wildcat strikes.

To be continued