Libs must state a position

IN Liberal circles the next month will be consumed by speculation over who will nominate for the safe federal seat of Bradfield, vacated by former leader Brendan Nelson. Already the suggestion is that the field will be of Melbourne Cup proportions.

The decision by former John Howard chief of staff Arthur Sinodinos not to contest the seat is a blow to the federal horsepower of the Coalition; he is one of the soundest minds on the conservative side of the battle of ideas.

But the possibility that he may consider a run for state politics instead should warm the hearts of Liberals who believe in powerful state legislatures. The idea of someone of Sinodinos's stature repairing the NSW finances as treasurer should be a welcomed outcome foranyone living in the nation's most populous state. Of course we can't know whether Sinodinos is even interested in a move into state politics. At this stage that is just the hope of one Liberal Party observer.

The question Liberals serious about the best interests of their party should be asking is why are so many high-calibre candidates still fighting for the opportunity to spend the next 10years in the political wilderness when they could be doing the party a genuine service by renewing the state division and contesting state seats ahead of the NSW election in March 2011?

The answer is that the Liberal Party, once the party of federalism, has lost its way when it comes to defending the rights of states to chart their course free from federal intervention. The situation is so bad that aspiring Liberal politicians largely no longer see value in running for a state seat, viewing federal politics as the main game. It is an arrogant outlook and a failure to recognise that state governments are still responsible for the majority of service delivery, which after all is what has most impact on the daily lives of voters.

In outlying states, principles of federalism remain alive and well in the Liberal Party. But in states such as NSW and Victoria, John Howard and Tony Abbott and their like have done their best to erode principles of federalism that have been the cornerstone of the conservative side of politics for a century.

The strangest thing about Liberals sticking with the newfound contempt for federalism is that now is precisely the time for Liberals to embrace powerful state governments as a way of asserting conservative ideas on the governmental process. After all, the pendulum has swung; Liberals are now out of power federally and, according to the polls, don't look like they will be back in power in the near, or even the quite distant, future.

In contrast, West Australian Liberals have just won their way back into government. Colin Barnett is the only incumbent Liberal leader in the country. Barry O'Farrell, despite his serious deficiencies as a conservative politician when it comes to electricity privatisation and publishing school leagues tables, is ahead in the polls and likely to be the next premier of NSW. In Tasmania and the Northern Territory it is just a matter of time before a change of government, and the recently elected Queensland Labor government won't get another term given the scandals that have dogged its first year after re-election.

So Liberals are about to enter a period of being out of power federally but controlling the treasury benches at state level. It is the right time for the conservative side of politics to find its roots when it comes to empowering the states.

The Liberal Party only turned its back on principles of federalism because it suited Howard to centralise authority in the commonwealth while he was running the show as prime minister. Now that Kevin Rudd is running a Labor government federally, and has already begun overturning much of Howard's legacy, a centralised power structure means that the Labor federal government will also be able to ride rough-shod over emerging state Liberal administrations.

Rather than being contemptuous of the idea of representing state legislatures, Liberals need to realise that the next decade will be defined by how effectively its emerging state administrations stand up to a commonwealth Labor government. That means finding the next wave of NickGreiners, Jeff Kennetts and Richard Courts.

Without putting too fine a point on it, O'Farrell and Ted Baillieu just don't stand up to their historical forebears. They don't have the sense of purpose that Liberal premiers had in the past.

Even if Liberals continue to think that the main game is federal politics, they need to understand that state politics can be an excellent conduit to a federal career. Rudd was chief of staff to a premier before becoming director-general of the Department of Premier and Cabinet in Queensland. Barack Obama was in state politics before he shifted to the Senate and then the presidency.

The Labor Party has always been good at using state politics to blood future federal representatives. The latest example is cabinet minister Tony Burke, who served in the NSW Legislative Council before moving into federal politics. Labor as a more professional party can see the advantage of using state and local politics to prepare future federal representatives. It is also a good method of working out which tier of government best exercises the qualities of political representatives.

In other words the Liberals need to see the importance of state politics without viewing it as an end in itself.

LAST weekend The Australian's foreign editor Greg Sheridan took to task opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Julie Bishop for her bizarre questioning of the Rudd government's decision to grant a visa to Rebiya Kadeer, the exiled leader of China's Muslim Uighur people, to attend a film festival and address the National Press Club.

I have to say the line of attack Bishop initiated beggared belief (even knowing her poor track record of late). I have long known that Bishop isn't the best performing federal Liberal parliamentarian, but implying that an outspoken advocate for human rights should be denied access to Australia because letting her into our democracy to spruik her ideas may upset the totalitarian regime that is China is a disgraceful position for the deputy leader of the alternative government to take. Fortunately, every Liberal I have spoken to since she made those remarks has been critical of what she had to say. Most Liberal MPs have made the point that there is nothing they as a party can do to get rid of her at the moment, despite a very prevalent desire to remove her.

Sheridan made the point that unless the Liberals change their position on the issue of China (as presented by Bishop) they don't deserve to be seriously considered as an alternative government. He is right, but I suspect that they stopped being treated as a viable alternative government some time earlier.