States stand up for their rights

FEDERALISM is never a sexy word with which to start an opinion column. But its revival is shaping the new political dynamic in this country. States standing up to Canberra are likely to continue shaping the political dynamic until the next federal election.

The federal government is weak and shows no signs of strengthening (although the past fortnight has seen a ramping up of the pro-carbon tax campaign; in time, if Tony Abbott doesn't develop a better alternative agenda, he could also find himself under greater pressure). Even if Julia Gillard manages to find a way to jell with the electorate, she will still be the leader of a minority government, which means the present parliamentary term will remain fundamentally unstable.

Meanwhile, the complexion of state governments is changing. In late 2008 the West Australian government unexpectedly shifted back to the Liberal Party. Late last year, even more unexpectedly, Victoria did the same. Earlier this year NSW voted Barry O'Farrell's Liberal-National opposition into office, although that change was certainly expected.

Of these three changes of government, two so far have delivered seemingly strong administrations.

The Colin Barnett-led government in Western Australia has shown a clear desire to stand up to Canberra. Parochialism in WA is an easy ethos (if you can call it that) to win local support, and Barnett has the gumption and policy expertise to take Canberra on in a way that builds, rather than erodes, voter support.

O'Farrell has been NSW Premier for only a little more than 60 days, but already he is showing signs of defying the critics (this one included) by making tougher decisions than many thought him capable of. From wages restraint for public service to cutting back government subsidies for solar panels, O'Farrell hasn't shirked tough decisions. While the depth in his ministerial line-up is as questionable as Barnett's, O'Farrell's leadership so far - like Barnett's - has been impressive.

The disappointment among the three changes of government at state level in the past three years has been the Ted Baillieu-led team in Victoria. John Brumby's Labor government was the most able state government in the nation, one of the reasons Kevin Rudd's health reforms looked to emulate much of the Victorian model. But the former premier wasn't a good salesman. The unexpected nature of the Victorian government's defeat late last year put an under-prepared opposition in charge of the treasury benches and it has shown. Chief-of-staff appointments to ministers have been slow and decision-making by the Liberal government has been cautious, at best.

But even Victoria's new government has shown a preparedness to take on Canberra, just this week shunning health and hospital reforms with renewed vigour.

If we look to the remaining long-term state administrations across the country, most resemble the dying days of Rome.

The Anna Bligh Labor government in Queensland goes to the polls next year and it is very hard to see how the incumbents will retain power. The South Australian government isn't due to face the people for years but Labor is dead in the water, with Premier Mike Rann's popularity at an all-time low and no ready replacement on offer. The Tasmanian government lost its democratically re-elected premier within a year of the last election (albeit after a minority victory) and there is no guarantee it will limp through a full term.

And that's the full list of state governments. Apart from what the political complexion presented will mean for federalism in future, it says a lot about the importance of federal Labor finding a way to win the next election. Otherwise it could be out of power across the continent: a sharp turnaround from 2007, when a similar fate befell the conservatives.

State governments will always stand up to Canberra to a point, but Liberal governments, by definition, should be more prepared to do so than Labor governments. Labor is no historical fan of federalism, whereas federalism used to be a cornerstone of conservative thinking. Federalism separates power between tiers of government, which offers a competitive instrument in policy development and a handbrake on ill-considered reforms: the perfect mix for a right-of-centre party.

However, during the John Howard years federalism as a doctrine within the Liberal Party stood diminished. That was despite his chief adviser Tony Nutt having been a long-time advocate of the concept and a host of new MPs spruiking their support for it in maiden speeches. Talk can be cheap. In fact the former PM was a virtual opponent of states' rights.

State Labor governments stood up for their partisan and sub-national interests, to be sure. But as the saying goes, you wouldn't want to get between a premier and a bag of money from the commonwealth, not in recent years. Howard, awash with money from the mining boom, became adept at buying off Labor premiers.

The early signs are that the new batch of Liberal premiers may not be so easily dealt with.

THIS week Tasmanian Liberal senator David Bushby made a name for himself for all the wrong reasons. Catcalling Finance and Deregulation Minister Penny Wong was a stupid thing to do; covering it up with his first retort on being called on the insult was even more stupid. He eventually apologised, as well he should have.

Wong's reaction was understandable and entirely appropriate. Good on her for not letting the sexist gibe rest. But her colleagues who quickly jumped in trying to take advantage of the situation should have thought better of it. They should have left it to the media to hang, draw and quarter Bushby: I can assure you that is what would have happened.

But by overdoing the attack on the Liberals - trying to suggest sexism was a wider problem among conservatives than progressives in the partisan context of parliament - Labor MPs lost the moral high ground and invited the airing of examples of men (and women) within their own ranks hurling sexist abuse. And the examples flowed thick and fast.

About the only truth in commentary that there is a partisan difference in the level of sexist abuse in parliament is that because Labor has quotas, it has more women in its ranks, so by definition there is less anti-female sexism among its MPs compared with the male-dominated ranks of the Coalition. The boys on both sides are as bad as each other. They just hunt in bigger packs on the conservative side of the chamber.

Peter van Onselen is a Winthrop professor at the University of Western Australia.