• Home
• Research
• Teaching
• Media
• Beyond Politics

Some of my recent publications include:

• ‘The OECD in Global Economic Governance’   The Australian Journal of International Affairs. Vol 65, No. 2. March 2011
• ‘The evolution of Labor’s health reform agenda: A preliminary assessment.’ Public Policy. Vol.5, No. 2., 2010.

• ‘The Henry Tax Review, Cartel Parties and the Reform Capacity of the Australian State’ (with Ian Marsh), The Australian Journal of Political Science. September 2011.
• ‘Revolution or Evolution: Sovereignty, the Financial Crisis and the Governance of International Taxation’, Journal of Applied Law and Policy. November 2011

Feel Free to email me if you would like copies of any of these papers.

The Gillard Government agreed to host a national tax forum as part of its negotiations with balance-of-power independents in the aftermath of the 2010 federal election. The broad rationale is to discuss the reform priorities arising from the Henry Review published in early 2010 although it is clear the Government is concerned that the Forum may be used to promote reform proposals (such as increasing the GST rate to abolish inefficient State taxes) which it is politically reluctant to support. Despite this apprehension the Forum has the potential to test and perhaps build stakeholder support for the next round of national tax reform.

I was firtunate enough to be one of 19 experts invited to attend the October Forum. More information on the event is available here while my personal state of priorities is available here.

Its been a busy winter and with debate about State finances dominating Tasmanian politics and tax reform on the national political agenda I have had an oportunity to epress my views on these and related issues. In June I was involved in ‘The Denison Debate’ on the topics of ‘The Future of the Tasmanian Economy’ which can be found here. In August I presented on a panel at the Institute of Public Administration National Conference discussing the topic of minority government which can be found here. In September I was involved in an international forum discussing fiscal federalism organised by my colleague Neil Warren form ATAX UNSW. An overview can be found here.

2011 has been busy in so far as public debate about tax and CGC reform, State budget strategy and politics is concerned. As a consequence I’ve been reasonably busy fielding various interviews and speaking requests from the media and community organisations.

Highlights include providing the ‘political outlook’ presentation at the recent Committee for the Economic Development  ‘2011 Tasmania Outlook’ conference. The audio of the presentation is here.

I recently (October 29) appeared as a panelist on ABC Radio’s Friday Forum. The panel discussed the recent parliamentary debate on Australia’s military commitment in Afghanistan and the challenges facing the Tasmanian Tourism Industry (among other issues) . The podcast can be accessed here:

2011 has been busy in so far as public debate about tax and CGC reform, State budget strategy and politics is concerned. As a consequence I’ve been reasonably busy fielding various interviews and speaking requests from the media and community organisations.

Highlights include providing the ‘political outlook’ presentation at the recent Committee for the Economic Development  ‘2011 Tasmania Outlook’ conference. The audio of the presentation is here.

I recently (October 29) appeared as a panelist on ABC Radio’s Friday Forum. The panel discussed the recent parliamentary debate on Australia’s military commitment in Afghanistan and the challenges facing the Tasmanian Tourism Industry (among other issues) . The podcast can be accessed here:

To view a recent (July 30) ABC Stateline interview on the 2010 Federal election campaign click here

The March 20 2010 Tasmanian election confirms the fact that the State now has a multi-party system. The challenge is to establish a political culture as well as institutions and strategies that can deliver stable and effective multiparty government.

Reflecting this aim the School of Government hosted a well attended public forum immediately after the State election addressing the issue of ‘making multi-party systems work’.

Information on the Forum is available here.
ABC television coverage of the Forum is available here.
The Hobart Mercury’s coverage of the forum is available here.
Complete video footage of the event is  available here.
My recently published Oped on making minority government work is available below:

Making Minority Government Work – April 19 2010

The result of the recent state election was both predictable and surprising in equal measure. While few could have predicted the exact twists and turns of our post-poll political thriller, the fact that Tasmania would be governed by some flavour of minority government was widely anticipated.

Tasmania’s proportional electoral system combined with the fact that we now have three established political parties means that majority government is likely to become the exception rather than the rule in our island State. The challenge is to build a political culture and establish institutions and practices that can deliver stable and effective government in our multi-party system.

It’s true that minority governments can become dysfunctional leading to instability and conflict , but it’s equally apparent that multi-party systems are becoming increasingly common and can deliver stable and effective government.

The first lesson from abroad is that minority government requires a culture of compromise such that political parties are willing to put the overarching goal of providing stable government above any short-term policy or partisan goals. Clearly creating a more accommodation  political culture requires real leadership and the transition from the current adversarial politics to a more consensual model will take time.

In terms of relationships between parties, a multi-party system must be sufficiently flexible to allow a government to survive a major disagreement between governing parties. The evidence suggests that formalised partnership agreement  between parties setting out a shared legislative program tends to enhance stability as long as the parties can agree to disagree on certain matters.

There are also a good number of international precedents for the formation of successful multi-party cabinets. Given the size of the Tasmanian parliament and its increasingly multi-party nature, it is vital that we establish agreed procedures for broadening cabinet representation. To this extent David Bartlett’s recent offer to Nick McKim was a positive development which reflects the new realities of Tasmanian politics.

However it is important to recognise that there are many risks associated with such arrangements. Again flexibility is the key. A minor party cabinet minister must  be able to vote against a cabinet decision although such a decision can’t be taken lightly and must be made in good faith and with fair warning. Another risk with multi-party cabinets is they can blur the lines of accountability. One side can easily blame the other for policy failures and the voting public are none-the-wiser because of cabinet confidentiality. A specific problem with the structure of the Bartlett offer was that McKim would have been obliged to try to convince his party room to support Labor policy while being unable to share confidential cabinet information. This may have put the Greens leader in an isolated position and would have promoted divisions in the party.

Given that Labor is governing in minority without either a partnership agreement or a multi-party cabinet it will be extremely important to establish a more open and democratic approach to policy development in order to minimise inter-party conflict on the floor of parliament.

The introduction of a robust committee system in the  House of Assembly would be a practical and important step towards this goal.  The objective of such a system would to be to provide a deliberative forum where stakeholders and experts could provide input on significant political issues early in the policy process.

Unlike other forms of public consultation, the advantage of an Assembly-based committee system is that all three parties would have an input into proceedings and would contribute to the findings of committee reports.  The hope would be to create a process where all three parties could contribute to policy development  with a view to identifying and building common ground on issues from Tasmania Tomorrow to health reform.

If a committee delivered a majority report on a particular issue with the support of two of our three parties then it should enhance the prospects of legislative action without unduly destabilising the minority government. While this system won’t  deliver consensus in relation to the most contested issues, at least the parties know what is possible prior to any parliamentary debate.

Committees have greased the wheels of government in most advanced democracies for decades. Countries such as the United States, where the President seldom has control over Congress, would be completely ungovernable without a committee system trying to build a census for various  legislative  agendas.  Tasmania should learn from the international experience in this regard if our multi-party system is to have the best chance of delivering the stable and effective government Tasmanians deserve.

Dr Richard Eccleston is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Government at the University of Tasmania. www.richardeccleston.com

The following interview was broadcast on ABC Stateline on February 12th 2010
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/02/12/2818521.htm

© Dr Richard Eccleston, University of Tasmania

Ph + 61 3 6226 2896

richard.eccleston@utas.edu.au

School of Government
Faculty of Arts, University of Tasmania
Private Bag 22
Hobart TAS 7001
Australia

• Home
• Research
• Teaching
• Media
• Beyond Politics