Psmp Assignment Wanna Case Study Review free essay sample

What were their main points? What are their claims/conclusions? ) (75) The focus of debate surrounded federalism and the two positions, pragmatism versus principle. The main themes discussed are, duplication of functions, lack of cooperation, division of financial resources across the layers, costly administrative practice, the effects of globalization, devolution of roles and function and cost shifting between tiers. The review appears to conclude that federalism is not a productive form of governance in Australia yet the recommendations focus heavily on reform of the current system. Evidence (How does the author support their argument /finding? Question the credibility, logic, or empirical basis of what the author has written. The weight of evidence is important. Evidence means the foundation for the argument. Do they have facts or just opinions? How many people’s views are represented? Is it just a few anecdotes from a few people or a major representative survey? Are they drawing on other experts or credible sources? ) Page (list the page numbers in the right hand column that relate to the evidence you find) (104) The evidence relied upon is limited. The article is not an academic review, it is a summary report of the roundtable discussion held to review federalism in Australia. The paper refers to â€Å"around 50 participants† attending the roundtable, the inability of the author to state the number of attendees in the discussion highlights the lack of detailed evidence provided throughout the report. Wanna states all three levels of Government view federalism as a malaise. This is poorly evidenced, as Local Government was not represented. When discussing options for repairing the system the author fails to quantify the support and relies on generalist statements only. Page 275 Page 276 Page 277 Observations (What is your assessment of the reading? Write evaluative or judgemental comments. This is where you give your view or ‘critical analysis’. For example, only one side of the case is put forward, or the author’s employment status precludes critical analysis of the issues. Consider whether the author is biased or is promoting a particular ideology. See Section 5 of this guide for further advice). 116) The purpose of the paper is not clearly defined, it does not draw any clear conclusions about the approach required, it appears to conclude that federalism is not a viable form of governance, this is however inadequately stated or supported. The paper does not provide insight into the author’s viewpoint on the issues discussed. The paper is not a piece of academic literature it is a summary of discussions held at the roundtable and therefor lacks structure and clarity of purpose, it fails to adequately support either position and at times contradicts itself. The author fails to critically analyse the roundtable issues, and does not provide sufficient supporting documentation or review to support a position. The complex language used in the piece makes it difficult to read and the intent of the paper is lost somewhat as a result. Wanna does not convey a position. Federalism is stuffed but all the suggestions for reform focus around the improvement of the current structure. Other relevant or related readings (Find and provide full citations for at least two other references on the same subject and comment on how they are relevant. Show how the different sources/references agree or disagree; identify areas of overlap or gaps. Use correct reference format, see Section 5. 10 of this guide. (The two citations are not included in your word count but your comments are)). (41 + 75) A Twomey and G Withers, Federalist Paper 1 – Australia’s Federal Future, Council for the Australian Federation, April 2007, p 15. Title of consider Where there are problems, they are often with the way the Australian federal system operates, rather than with federalism itself. Rather than criticising our federal system, we should be working to make better use of its advantages? n order to improve our prosperity. In particular, the reform of the allocation of powers and responsibilities between the Commonwealth and the States, and reform of fiscal federalism, are desperately needed. (Twomey and Withers, 2007) Twomey and Withers argue the approach of strategic pragmatism as outlined in Wanna’s paper. The basis of their p osition is that the federalism structure is unlikely to be subject to major redesign and the discussion should focus on improving current operation. Commonwealth Government, Budget Paper No 3: Australia’s Federal Relations, 2009-10, 12 May 2009, p 7. Federations work best when the roles and responsibilities of each jurisdiction are clear and good public accountability mechanisms allow the community to hold the appropriate level of government to account for the quality and efficiency of the services delivered and outcomes achieved. Wanna highlighted the contention around delineation of roles and functions and whether this was a reasonable way forward given the shifts and changes in operating environment and questioned whether it was a worth- while goal to have a strict demarcation of roles and responsibilities between the jurisdictions. Wanna 2007) This point is contrasted by the clear view stated in the Commonwealth Government, Budget paper in 2009 that advocates strongly for demarcation of role and function. Part 2: Minor assignment Diagnostic Essay (1000 words, 65 marks) Write a critical essay about Federalism on the following topic: Discussing the outcome of a Roundtable discussion of federalism in Australia, John Wanna report ed that ll three levels of government Commonwealth, state/territory and local tended to see federalism as a malaise, not as a source of effective government (Wanna 2007: 276). What might be the reasons for this negative view of our system of government? What steps might be taken to overcome it? This essay, authored by XXXXXXXXXX, critically discusses Wanna’s statement, â€Å"that federalism is seen as a malaise† (Wanna, 2007) This paper will question this statement and explore steps to overcome the barriers to effective government. The recommendations of the roundtable ocused on adapting and improving the current system, which demonstrates that the system despite its limitations is entrenched in our political context and provides a stable form of Government moving forward. This essay explores the criticisms of federalism by examining the vertical fiscal imbalance ad the power dynamics associated with the funding relationships, reviewing the ambiguity in role and fun ctions of the tiers of government and discussing the limited capacity of the current system to provide clear and consistent legislation to support global operation. After reviewing the negative views of federalism and why the system is struggling to deliver effective government the essay will explore some of the options for reform, these options like the suggestions made by the roundtable review of federalism will focus on improving the current system. Federalism creates significant over lap in function and effort between governments, leading to a lack of role clarity, inefficiency and duplication of function (Fenna 2007: 298; Wanna 2007: 277). The blurred lines of responsibility and lack of clarity concerning the roles and functions of each level of government makes the system inefficient. The recent trends of federalism in Australia have seen the Commonwealth intervening on state and territorial matters hence creating a conflict of responsibilities (Tiernan, 2008). The Commonwealth has significant economic and financial power over the states due to the centralization of functions and the revenue base of the Commonwealth. This results in conflict in areas of responsibility and is evidenced by exploring the power dynamics within the funding relationships of government. With the Commonwealth holding the purse strings of the nation, a power imbalance is created. The states have insufficient revenue to meet the costs of service delivery and rely upon significant financial allocations from the commonwealth to carry out their functions; this is known as the vertical fiscal imbalance. The financial allocation and distribution of resources to the states has enabled the Commonwealth to have significant and direct input into the way funding is spent by the states. This undermines one of the key benefits of the federal system, the ability of states and territories to solve local issues by implementing solutions that are relevant to concerns specific to its states (Tiernan, 2008). Further to the financial argument is the focus of governments on cost shifting. A great deal of time and energy is spent determining who should pick up the check, and with the division of responsibilities being so unclear it supports the ongoing discussions over who should pay for what. With limited resources available to each of the tiers of government this argument has significant traction and the incentive for governments to shift the costs to others is clear. The complex nature of delivering service across the states due to lack of harmonisation of critical legislative frameworks is clear when exploring the interstate train example. This project has had in principle agreement from all governments since 1996, due to legislative barriers and challenges has been unable to gain traction. Operating an interstate train in Australia involves answering to seven rail safety regulators, three transport accident regulators, six rail access regimes, 15 occupational health and safety laws and 75 environmental laws. Steketee, 2008:193) The absurdity of this example highlights the need to review current regulations and establish consistency amongst Commonwealth and State legislation in order for Australia to operate effectively in a global environment. The relations between the three levels of government, and multiple governments within one level, impose institutional constraints on what individual governments can do and on their capacity to reform the machinery of government. (O’Faircheallaigh et al. 999:97) The pragmatic position to federalism, under pinned by these constraints advocates for reform within the current structure and it is from this position that this essay begins to explore opportunities for reform. Reform opportunities of the current model of federalism focus around the key criticisms outlined, the need to align the responsibilities of the layers of government, devolution of functions and review of the legislative influence exercised by the Commonwealth when purchasing service delivery from the states. Wanna et al. 2009: 9). It is essential that all tiers of government are responsive to the needs of the local community. Subsidiarity is essential, in achieving this goal as it endorses the most local form of government to address the issue (Wanna et al. 2009: 9). This devolution of power supports a robust democratic system of government, one that facilitates input and allows for consideration of a multitude of community views in the decision making process and the shaping of policy agendas that inform service delivery. An important facet of this is the need to focus Commonwealth attention on purchasing outcomes for service delivery and allowing the states to determine the mechanisms for achieving the results (Podger 2008: 36; Wanna 2007: 278) Federalism itself is not the problem. It is the funding and broader relationship complexities, the lack of clarity surrounding roles and responsibilities and the interface of legislation that needs to be addressed to improve the functioning and outcomes of the system. Despite the significant and often valid criticisms of federalism, it is a strong economic performer by international standards. Federalism provides a flexible and responsive framework to support management of changes in the global environment while maintaining a politically stable democracy. Federalism is regarded as one of the best governmental systems for dealing with the twin pressures produced by globalisation – the upward pressure to deal with some matters at the supra-national level and the downwards pressure to bring government closer to the people. (Twomey and Withers 2007: ) ? Reference List Fenna, A 2007, ‘The malaise of federalism: comparative reflections on Commonwealth-state relation’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 298-306. (PSM Manual pp. 224-232 – reproduced under license, in PSM Program 2009, Managing up: the framework of public sector management). O’Faircheallaigh et al. 1999:97 Challenges of Federalism. (PSM Manual pp. 188 – reproduced under license, in PSM Program 2009, Podger, A 2008, ‘Federalism reform’, Public Administration Today, vol. 14, pp. 35-37. Steketee M. , 2008 ‘Rudd’s State Quagmire’ in The Australian, 26. 6. 08. (PSM Manual pp. 193 – reproduced under license, in PSM Program 2009, Managing up: the framework of public sector management). Tiernan, A. (2008). The Council for the Australian Federation: A New Structure of Australian Federalism. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67(2), 122-134 Twomey, A Withers, G 2007, Australia’s federal future: a report for the council for the Australian federation, Council for the Australian Federation, Adelaide, SA. Wanna, J 2007, ‘Improving federalism: drivers for change, repair options and reform scenarios’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 275-279. Wanna, J, Phillimore, J, Fenna, A Harwood, J 2009, Common cause: strengthening Australias cooperative federalism: final report to the Council for the Australian Federation, Council for the Australian Federation, Adelaide, SA. Wanna, J. 2007, ‘The malaise of federalism: comparative reflections on Commonwealth-state relation’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 298-306. (PSM Manual pp. – reproduced under license, in PSM Program 2009, Managing up: the framework of public sector management). ?