Posted: Thursday, 2 December 2010 | By: kencogl

A fundamental underlying factor is the centralising tendency of the ALP (and the Liberal Party). This is reflected in everything from the effective distribution of Commonwealth and State/Territory powers to the emasculation of rank and file membership of the ALP. This is so pervasive that it should be addressed as an over-arching issue rather than each expression of it addressed as a discreet matter to be dealt with on a case by case basis.

The obverse is to devolve decision-making and administration to the most local practical level – known as subsidiarity. The highest authority sets the overall design rules (“market design” in David Hetherington’s terminology) but only those that need to be national. All other decision-making occurs at the level closest to those directly affected.

A recent example is the hospital reforms – the Commonwealth has established the new “market design” but the hospitals are to be operated by devolved, decentralised administrations. This example shows we can do it and we can base decisions to do it on a sound evidence base.

The empirical evidence for the superior outcomes for subsidiarity is thus readily available. The problem is not a lack of evidence. Like climate change, the problem is turning around an entrenched culture and challenging those who enjoy power and influence derived from the centralising culture and the structural features which that culture has generated.

Undoing and reversing decades of centralising structures cannot occur overnight, but challenging and changing the culture can occur much more quickly and have immediate electoral appeal.