What about an argument for a unitary state that rests on the convenience of changing the distribution of responsibilities between levels of government? At the moment, a challenge we have is that if we wanted to confer a certain government responsibility on the Commonwealth that sits beyond the powers enumerated in s 51, we have to go through a difficult and fractious referendum process.
Under a unitary system, we could maintain devolution of powers, but if we were to decide, for example, that school resourcing across the country should be needs-based and follow a uniform rule, the central government could simply shift where the responsibility was located rather than have to navigate hard constitutional limits.
That seems to support conscious subsidiarity, rather than relying on hard subsidiarity set practically in stone in 1901 (given our experience of referenda). Why not retain the States but allow a more conscious and active distribution of responsibilities? Why settle for 'it ain't (too) broke, so don't fix it' in terms of the current somewhat arbitrary and antiquated division of powers?
We have managed this kind of change pretty flexibly, even if the outcomes aren't always pretty. For example, the Commonwealth does nearly all university funding even though the unis are legally subject to state government legislation. And the mess of school funding reflects the decision of the Menzies (federal) government to fund Catholic schools back in the 1960s.
A key premise of the argument in the post is that the Australian State capital cities/conurbations exist, are not going away, and are going to retain their demographic, economic and political weight within the Australian polity. I think this is completely correct. This then raises the question of the extent to which advocates of replacing the states with regional governments are also romantic advocates of demographic decentralisation and de-urbanisation.
Whitlam pushed the idea hard, promoting Albury-Wodonga and Bathurst-Orange as growth centres. Albury-Wodonga has done OK, but I haven't heard anyone refer to Bathurst-Orange for decades, and both Bathurst and Orange remain as small cities, growing more slowly than Australia as a whole
I could not agree more. There is a natural tendency for people to think that uniformity and consistency across human affairs is preferable. If Australia had an advantage during COVID, it was that different states could experiment with different approaches. In times of uncertainty, it is good to be able to run a natural experiment. I certainly would not have like Victoria’s approach to be imposed across the whole country.
.
Likewise Switzerland is one country that fails to get much attention but should. Switzerland’s strength lies in the fact that political sovereignty and power rests primarily with the Cantons. The role of the Federal government is small. Even immigration is handled mainly by the Cantons.
The COVID-19 pandemic, as it affected the lives of Australian households, clearly exposed the idea of centralised control to ridicule. While the federal cabinet dithered, the state cabinets acted. Luckily they already had the constitutional power to act within their own borders. So that ALL people in NSW had the same restrictions imposed, and this was true for all the other states. Meanwhile Canberra could not even protect aged people in nursing homes. And they could not set up quarantine stations in time to be of any use. But Victoria set one up in quick time. Not everything done by state governments was popular, but they had the policing powers to protect the majority of their population. The federal government dropped the ball at the very beginning of the pandemic. Luckily for Australians, state governments were there to accept the responsibility and carry most of the burden. That may have produced six different solutions, but that beats the no win solutions coming out of Canberra.
The Commonwealth of Australia is a federal creation of the States reflecting the economic perspectives of the late 19th Century. Thus, aviation and telecommunications fell to the Commonwealth by default because they did not exist at the time. As a creature of the States, it is not amenable to broadscale reform.
But as an intellectual exercise I'd suggest a Rawlsian approach. Starting from a clean slate, would you really have put your major cities where they are? Sydney in particular, while a delightful place to live for those with harbour views, is geographically a ridiculous place for a major port, cut off by rugged hills and crumbling river valleys from most of its hinterland. Brisbane is in a flood plain increasingly threatened by climate change.
So I have to disagree with John about how regional governments ought to be established. There is no reason at all, for example, why Newcastle should be bundled in with Sydney The Hunter Valley region has a population comparable to Tasmania. It should serve It simply lacks Tasmania's 10 Senators to assert its rights against the greed of Sydney, amply demonstrated by the outrageous and secret deal to increase the privatisation price for the Port of Botany by requiring a punitive surcharge on general cargo discharge through Newcastle.
So why not a South-East province with Twofold Bay as its port, servicing Gippsland and Eastern Victoria. A South-Western province around the port of Albany. There is a lot of possibility for growth and diversification and a great deal of potential economic efficiency when you start to think outside the established grids, established through the accident of discovery by sailing ship.
It's all history dependent, to be sure. But you would still have the same states, just with the capitals moved a bit. And if we were redoing 20th century decisions, I think Canberra would have been on the coast, near Twofold Bay
You'd also move to mixed member federal electorates, you'd have 5 per seat, increase the number of parliamentarians (which unfortunately we need) so you wouldn't shrink the number of pollies as much as you'd like but we'd have much better and fairer representation. The councils would run local services like they do now, you'd still need a lot of public servants to run the joint but why should teachers, cops, and nurses be paid differently in Albury vs Wodonga?
What about an argument for a unitary state that rests on the convenience of changing the distribution of responsibilities between levels of government? At the moment, a challenge we have is that if we wanted to confer a certain government responsibility on the Commonwealth that sits beyond the powers enumerated in s 51, we have to go through a difficult and fractious referendum process.
Under a unitary system, we could maintain devolution of powers, but if we were to decide, for example, that school resourcing across the country should be needs-based and follow a uniform rule, the central government could simply shift where the responsibility was located rather than have to navigate hard constitutional limits.
That seems to support conscious subsidiarity, rather than relying on hard subsidiarity set practically in stone in 1901 (given our experience of referenda). Why not retain the States but allow a more conscious and active distribution of responsibilities? Why settle for 'it ain't (too) broke, so don't fix it' in terms of the current somewhat arbitrary and antiquated division of powers?
We have managed this kind of change pretty flexibly, even if the outcomes aren't always pretty. For example, the Commonwealth does nearly all university funding even though the unis are legally subject to state government legislation. And the mess of school funding reflects the decision of the Menzies (federal) government to fund Catholic schools back in the 1960s.
A key premise of the argument in the post is that the Australian State capital cities/conurbations exist, are not going away, and are going to retain their demographic, economic and political weight within the Australian polity. I think this is completely correct. This then raises the question of the extent to which advocates of replacing the states with regional governments are also romantic advocates of demographic decentralisation and de-urbanisation.
Whitlam pushed the idea hard, promoting Albury-Wodonga and Bathurst-Orange as growth centres. Albury-Wodonga has done OK, but I haven't heard anyone refer to Bathurst-Orange for decades, and both Bathurst and Orange remain as small cities, growing more slowly than Australia as a whole
Albury-Wodonga makes for a natural twin city, but Bathurst and Orange are 57km apart.
I could not agree more. There is a natural tendency for people to think that uniformity and consistency across human affairs is preferable. If Australia had an advantage during COVID, it was that different states could experiment with different approaches. In times of uncertainty, it is good to be able to run a natural experiment. I certainly would not have like Victoria’s approach to be imposed across the whole country.
.
Likewise Switzerland is one country that fails to get much attention but should. Switzerland’s strength lies in the fact that political sovereignty and power rests primarily with the Cantons. The role of the Federal government is small. Even immigration is handled mainly by the Cantons.
The COVID-19 pandemic, as it affected the lives of Australian households, clearly exposed the idea of centralised control to ridicule. While the federal cabinet dithered, the state cabinets acted. Luckily they already had the constitutional power to act within their own borders. So that ALL people in NSW had the same restrictions imposed, and this was true for all the other states. Meanwhile Canberra could not even protect aged people in nursing homes. And they could not set up quarantine stations in time to be of any use. But Victoria set one up in quick time. Not everything done by state governments was popular, but they had the policing powers to protect the majority of their population. The federal government dropped the ball at the very beginning of the pandemic. Luckily for Australians, state governments were there to accept the responsibility and carry most of the burden. That may have produced six different solutions, but that beats the no win solutions coming out of Canberra.
The Commonwealth of Australia is a federal creation of the States reflecting the economic perspectives of the late 19th Century. Thus, aviation and telecommunications fell to the Commonwealth by default because they did not exist at the time. As a creature of the States, it is not amenable to broadscale reform.
But as an intellectual exercise I'd suggest a Rawlsian approach. Starting from a clean slate, would you really have put your major cities where they are? Sydney in particular, while a delightful place to live for those with harbour views, is geographically a ridiculous place for a major port, cut off by rugged hills and crumbling river valleys from most of its hinterland. Brisbane is in a flood plain increasingly threatened by climate change.
So I have to disagree with John about how regional governments ought to be established. There is no reason at all, for example, why Newcastle should be bundled in with Sydney The Hunter Valley region has a population comparable to Tasmania. It should serve It simply lacks Tasmania's 10 Senators to assert its rights against the greed of Sydney, amply demonstrated by the outrageous and secret deal to increase the privatisation price for the Port of Botany by requiring a punitive surcharge on general cargo discharge through Newcastle.
So why not a South-East province with Twofold Bay as its port, servicing Gippsland and Eastern Victoria. A South-Western province around the port of Albany. There is a lot of possibility for growth and diversification and a great deal of potential economic efficiency when you start to think outside the established grids, established through the accident of discovery by sailing ship.
It's all history dependent, to be sure. But you would still have the same states, just with the capitals moved a bit. And if we were redoing 20th century decisions, I think Canberra would have been on the coast, near Twofold Bay
You'd also move to mixed member federal electorates, you'd have 5 per seat, increase the number of parliamentarians (which unfortunately we need) so you wouldn't shrink the number of pollies as much as you'd like but we'd have much better and fairer representation. The councils would run local services like they do now, you'd still need a lot of public servants to run the joint but why should teachers, cops, and nurses be paid differently in Albury vs Wodonga?