Abstract

To study Australian politics is, for many, to study the national government: its institutions, its parties, leaders, elections, and policy outcomes. For others, the focus is on Australia in the world, not just because globalization brings that world ever closer, but also because foreign policy is a dominant feature of any national politics. Yet another, intermediate field of focus is multilevel governance, a neologism of the past twenty years, originating in Europe and the USA, This is intended to capture the reality that governance –authoritative action on public matters – is increasingly the domain of no one government, but is shared, negotiated and mediated in a multilevel setting. Thus it involves nongovernmental actors, international organizations, and differing orders and functional public authorities of many kinds. Think about what happens (or perhaps should happen) in such areas of public concern as pandemic disease, climate change, terrorism, food security, migration, natural disasters and financial services. Responsibility for these matters can rest as much with global authorities as with national ones. Yet it also extends to the local and regional.

Politics everywhere is territorial and communal. The achievement of such diverse political values as democracy, freedom, equity and accountability hinges greatly on the definition of community: who are the people to be governed and where do they live? Do people think differently about politics, act differently, and want different outcomes depending on where they live, or their identity as a community? As a scholar of comparative federalism from Canada, it seems axiomatic to me that democracy in a large territory can only be achieved by federalism: the sharing of power between a central government for common purposes and regional governments for more local ones. Yet for Canadians, federalism is also an existential question: who are we if not a union of peoples, languages, regions? What would Canada be if Quebec were to secede, or if we did not share power among our provinces, territories, and aboriginal peoples? But other federal polities do not have such deep divisions within their societies, and seem to make an inevitable march between federal union and a single national identity. This seems to be the case with Australia, thus begging the question, is Australia still a federal society, and does it matter?

Of course Australia retains a federal form of government, the lines of which were laid out in 1901 and not much changed since then. Six states, two self-governing territories, a Commonwealth parliament with two houses, one of which represents the states equally. The states and territories are vital democratic entities, they have direct electoral legitimacy and they tax and regulate their citizens. They are powerful political players and are the cockpit of fierce partisan competition as well as important policy innovation and diffusion. Full statehood is obviously a desired political commodity, or the Northern Territory wouldn’t be seeking it. Still, the balance of power between the central government in Canberra and the States has shifted greatly over the years, with centralization in terms of fiscal capacity, regulatory power, and program standards.

In many respects this trend would appear to be responding to deeply felt preferences among Australians for equity and uniformity of policy results, regardless of where one lives in Australia. How different to the on-the-ground policy diversity across the states or provinces that voters people in the USA or Canada seem to favour! The centralizing trend also seems to be responding to the needs of powerful interests, such as business, for a “seamless national economy”, and managerial efficiency. Differing state policies for such things as publicly funded child care, hospital insurance or taxi monopolies can seem redundant to some, but federal theory says that a bit of redundancy and competition among governments is a good thing, promoting democratic response and diversity, and often more efficient public service delivery closer to the people. Where is the trade-off?

A big challenge of multilevel governance is indeed the process of getting things done in circumstances where multiple parties must agree. Here Australia has been an innovator. The Council of Australian Governments (COAG), established in 1995, provides a well-oiled machine for reaching a whole range of coordinated results across the governments for everything from gun control to margarine. It has directed major reforms in the economy, social programs and the environment. But if Australia has established important and effective “working rules” for intergovernmental relations (inspired by the European Union’s very effective Council of Ministers), there remain some worries. All the hundreds of meetings held every year under the COAG umbrella of ministerial councils, committees and working groups are closed to the public. They are a function of the executive and covered by cabinet secrecy. Legislatures have a hard time figuring what’s actually going on, let alone evaluating the results, which are often presented to them as fait accompli deals that cannot be amended. The States worry that their own priorities and energies are dissipated by the constant demand for national strategies, and of course, they always complain that there’s not enough money for them to do what the Commonwealth wants. Finally, there is the classic critique of all multilevel process outcomes: who is to blame when things go wrong?

To add further complexity, but it can hardly be helped, one needs to consider local government. In Australia local government counts for less it seems than in other countries. For example, the State governments do here a lot of what municipal governments do elsewhere. Brazil, Germany and South Africa all have enshrined local government powers in their federal constitutions: they have a formal place at the table. Who else should be at the table? This is a contestable matter, to say the least. In Canada, aboriginal peoples have constitutional rights to self-government and are gradually making their way into the multilevel system. Elsewhere deliberative councils of citizens and interest groups play quasi-formal roles in the political process. In Europe, regions within nation-states have a forum to discuss matters with the European Parliament and other European institutions. Should States and territories be directly involved in international diplomacy?

In sum, the emerging world of multilevel governance challenges the tidy realm and primacy of national politics, in Australia as elsewhere. It makes for fascinating study, but the devil is in the details, and one must continually ask difficult-to-answer questions about who ultimately the governance is for, and whether it achieves the kinds of results we need.