Approach:
This paper will argue that a Republic is not just inevitable but that it is highly desirable and that Australia should get on with creating it. The issue is really what kind of Republic because if there is not a substantial improvement on the status quo many citizens, understandably, won't be interested in it. We could see that with the result of the 1999 Referendum . This does not mean that major constitutional changes have to be put to the electorate in one large package at the next Republic referendum. But it does mean that some broad agreement needs to emerge, that very substantial changes need to be put on the table for discussion and strategic commitments made by political parties to involve the public frequently, through plebiscites and referendums, to indicate their preferences. One such major change, the proposed abolition of the states, has been the subject of discussion of several of the community groups, political parties and individuals present here today. The debate amongst their members has focussed on what type of sub-national units should be favoured as the second tier: regions or local government, - and on the numbers of such units. This is a very important matter because, within the existing three-level structure, regional development has failed consistently in Australia - for a variety of reasons - and urban sprawl, urban traffic problems, and pollution have become a major state political issues. The position I put here favours the maintenance of local government in regional and rural areas, with expanded functions for some, powers delegated directly from the national government and, particularly, much stronger financial status. In addition, there should be regions, in part based on the Voluntary Regional Organisations (or Regional Organisation of Councils) grafted on and created by Local Government, which I have described here as Mezzanine Regions which has a particular meaning which will be explained. In addition, Australia needs City Governments, for the larger cities only, with jurisdiction for the whole of the urban areas in question. Such Governments should be elected at the same time as all Local Council elections are held nationally. Such reforms will not only strengthen both the National Government and Local Government, but would end the cumbersome, dysfunctional centralisation which has been a problem of the states ever since federation. The need to combine such reforms with the Republican issue has been questioned by some but the view expressed here is that now is the time to combine these aspirations because they are interconnected and interdependent and, together, provide a turbo charge to propel advancement which federation and the monarchical tradition has held back for a long time. Rather than a timid Minimalism we need to adopt a Maximalist approach to constitutional change. This paper is about System Change and rejects any further piecemeal tinkering if Regional Development and urban problems are going to be tackled effectively. It also presents the view that these desirable reforms cannot reasonably be expect from either of the major parties.
The Mezzanine Concept defined.
For a change let me start somewhere in the middle of the paper by providing a description of Mezzanine. It comes from from 'Mezzanine floor level', which basically means 'in-between' two normal levels, usually between first and second floors and more often than not, of a two-story building. The Mezzanine floor may not extend over the whole surface of the first floor because ceiling heights may differ, in large retail stores and supermarkets - and schools. But sometimes they do and yet it is not an ordinary floor in the hierarchy. What is interesting and useful for an analogy with levels of political units is what actually happens on such floors and how they are viewed by the organisation and the public. Mezzanine floors usually house support or 'staff' units which are not very visible to the public/customers/ clients although they are usually quite important, indeed essential to the proper functions of the organisation. The units housed there are not 'front line' and generally not 'line' as opposed to 'staff'. Sometimes they function as store space or library or archive. The administration people are found there and the coordinators behind the scenes, not often the executives. In some buildings Mezzanine floor space may also be partly sublet to professionals at lower rentals than elsewhere to boost the income of the organisation which owns the space. So the key words are, out of the way physically, fairly invisible, support and coordinating functions, maintenance and storage function, not directly interacting with the public but still a vital part of the organisation.
a. Why abolishing the states? - a political issue.
b. The failure of regional development within the existing structures
c. Strengthening local government and regional development
d. Regions as adjuncts to local government - the Mezzanine Concept
e. City Government
f. Why should the Republic issue be connected with large-scale reform?
a. Why abolishing the states? - a political issue.
Most of those who are gathered here today need hardly be reminded of the major reasons why the states should be abolished although it is amazing how few people are aware of this. Perhaps not so amazing because the media rarely seriously discuss such issues. They do discuss the consequences of the problems we face but not the causes. Our three-tiered system has massive disadvantages eg. the enormous cost of our political system with far too many politicians, civil services etc has been stated well in Rodney Hall's short text and by Mark Drummond since then; the inefficiencies of states permitting investors to play off states against each others; the administrative inefficiencies, different standards, conflicting policies on major issues of national concern requiring elaborate partnership and coordinating devices, and many time-consuming discussions and travel, to come to at least some agreements - and sometimes not.
However, add to this the persistent failure of decentralisation and regional development in this huge continent, over many decades, aggravated by the economic rationalist public policies and privatisations of the last 15 years or so. The case for abolishing the states is very strong but neither of the major parties, with some notable exceptions of individual politicians, are interested in pursuing that objective. We can talk about desirable models to replace this system until the cows come home but unless we find the political will, and capacity, to bring about these changes the crisis will continue and become worse. These changes can only be achieved by a National Government that is determined to reverse the process. Apart from abolishing the states and creating a different sub-national level of political units this will also require substantial Government investment, intervention and regulation. Abolishing the states would provide the financial capacity to implement far-reaching changes.
b. The failure of regional development within the existing structures
In our existing political system structure and existing economic system decentralisation and regional development, from the 1940s onwards, has been unsuccessful. The capacity on resolve by the states to deliver on adopted policies to achieve that end was never strong and so some regions desired to become states themselves, like New England in the 1960s, for which the Constitution provides in theory. If this option had worked effectively over the last 100 years a quite different situation may have emerged in Australia. It hasn't worked and grossly unbalanced economic development and population distribution has resulted. The very obvious centralisation of decision-making in capital cities has persisted and intensified for over 100 years. Combined with the predominantly capitalist system and the early development of urban areas around major ports, the impetus for substantial regional centres to emerge has been lacking. Stilwell (1980, 1992, 1993) has shown that capitalist decisions for investment have tended to strongly favour the existing cities on account of available labour pools and skills, markets and ports. Unless a strong National Government, which replaces Capital City decision-making for the states with a quite different agenda for regional development than in the past, one cannot reasonably expect a reversal or even a stop to the present trends. Even the most recent research demonstrates that the de-population of rural Australia is continuing. It is true that a number of regional urban centres have absorbed some of the drift away from smaller rural villages - some are doing well economically, for the moment. Certainly, the awareness of the urgent need to do something has existed at the national (federal) level for some considerable time but the effectiveness has been disappointing.
I have briefly looked at the attempts by Labour and Coalition federal Governments over the last 15 years to boost regional development within the existing political framework, the three-tier system. I would say that it has nearly been a complete failure. That much was candidly admitted in the Report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee om Primary Industries and Regional Services (2000) - Time running Out - Shaping Regional Australia's Future. The Report covered many areas but acknowledged the reduction of services in nearly all regional areas and recommended that this had to stop. Competition Policy got the blame for much of the decline in services, rightly so, and the Report recommended 'a new focus for investment in regional Australia. Failing that 'we face the danger of Australian being divided into 'two nations'.' (Intro., by L. P. Committee Chair, Fran Bailey). The 92 recommendations were quite far-reaching however most were quickly rejected by the Federal Government which described them as 'too costly or unrealistic' (SMH, 14.3.02).
Earlier the Productivity Commission published a Report following the Inquiry into the Impact of Competition Policy Reforms on Rural and Regional Australia (1999)
As part of the Terms of Reference Competition Policy was generally welcomed but should ensure 'that the benefits of increased competition flow to all Australians, including those living in rural and regional Australia'. Significantly it was admitted that 'Competition Policy also recognises that there can also be circumstances in which restrictions on competition may be justified where there are offsetting public benefits' . The beginning of the failure of Competition Policy is flagged in this Report - confirmed by the 2000 Report mentioned above. A quote in the 'Overview' is sufficiently telling:
many people in country Australia see National Competition Policy (NCP) as an unprecedented outbreak of 'economic rationalism' which ignores important social issues and poses a threat to their way of life - adversely affecting their standard of living and the adequacy of services in country Australia. NCP is widely perceived as being responsible for the withdrawal of government services, the demise of local business, the closure of country bank branches and is regarded by some as a major factor behind the population decline in parts of country Australia. NCP has also been linked to higher rates of crime, drug abuse, suicide and the creation of a demographic 'hole' - a shortage of young motivated people needed to maintain the social fabric to towns through involvement in the community, sporting an recreational activities
(pp. XXIII/XXIV)
We can add the collapse of regional aviation in 2001/2002 - directly as a result of deregulation and privatisation of airlines services - as another disastrous effect of NCP. Similarly, the de-regulation of milk production had the effect of damaging the NSW milk industry without actually achieving a decrease in the price of milk, as foreshadowed by the ideologues, but instead requiring massive compensation pay-outs to NSW victims. So what we have been witnessing since1996 is the effect of unbridled capitalism on regional Australia, basically an intensification of the effects of the more moderate capitalist system which Stilwell identified as the principal cause of 100 years of very uneven city/country economic development. Such failures were meant to be corrected by the sale of Telstra - completely unacceptable to the bush anyway - and all kinds of piecemeal tinkering by friends of Mr. Howard such as the media populist Alan Jones of Radio 2 GB. Jones came up with Farmhand Appeal, to rescue rural Australia generously with a massive water diversion plan to irrigate inland areas with the water of the big East Coast rivers. It transpired that the Telstra sale could provide some $10 m. for this purpose 'to water Australia', a deal which would leave Mr. Jones apparently not out of pocket either. The revisiting of watering Australia in this way, rejected by many scientists in the past as not feasible nor desirable, is no substitute for proper regional development. The Coalition also came up with the Solutions for Regional Australia Program (from October 2002) aimed to encourage local and regional solutions ideas into action. These schemes are run 'by the community, for the community' providing grants from $1000 to $500,000. While some communities may do well out of this it would seem that such programmes are born out of desperation and lack of real commitment to regional development. It smacks of piecemeal tinkering, opportunism and lack of strategic planning. This is not to say that individuals may not have good ideas for regional development, such as for example the 'dream' of Richard Pratt to replace open irrigation channels with a (covered) piped system to avoid evaporation. But even Pratt's millions may not be enough to pull this off.
The efforts of the ALP in relation to 'regionalism' , when in power, were flagged in 1993 in a Regional Task Force Report 'Developing Australia - A Regional Perspective' . The Task Force was headed by ACTU leader Bill Kelty. While the Report created an agenda to address the massive disadvantages of the regions, especially following a recession, recommendations were made for substantial expenditure to rectify unemployment and many other identified problems. Remarkably, for a Labor Government, one of the main terms of reference was to 'examine factors affecting private sector investment', seen as one major way to finance regional development. Although the Commonwealth claimed to be in favour of structural change this did not seem to be treated seriously. However, increased public borrowing was recommended, through Infra Structure Bonds. Extensive upgrading of the nations's highways was planned in the Report. While many areas were covered, and some good recommendations made, empowering the regions to assist in this program was to be done by the creation of Regional Economic Develop Organisations (REDOs). These should be 'genuinely representative of the people in the region'.
It is difficult to say how far the ALP's program would have gone. Some of the REDO's got off the ground. They did seem did have some promise perhaps but by 1996, only two years after it commenced, the coalition came to power and the program was shelved.
c. Strengthening local government and regional development
Local government has always been the cinderella of the three-tier system of Government. Why should it continue to be? In the early 1970s the Whitlam Government attempted to link Local Government constitutionally to the Federal Government through a Referendum. This failed as the Coalition argued that it was an infringement of the federal system and principle. Such a revolutionary step was just too much for the conservative forces. Other ways were found to strengthen Local Government somewhat through changes to the Grants Commission operation. The ambition by Local Government to have a s lice of Income Tax returned to it, as far as I understand it, remained just that. In spite of this low status there is much evidence that the Australian people favour a strengthening Local Government. Local Government seminar sessions in the lead up to the Constitutional Convention (some 160?) indicated strongly that the people want Local Government recognised in the Constitution and also that they favour abolishing the states. They also want it strengthened financially and, where desirable and feasible, given greater powers. I certainly favour using the existing Local Government level as the starting point of building a more democratic Australia. However, it should be recognised that there are and will remain great variations within that level on account of the size of Council areas and their capacity to raise funds. In sparsely populated areas it will be much harder to uphold the democratic principle than in densely populated areas. Community of interest may not always be so easily determined, meaning that standardisation of services and funding formulas need to be flexible. But at least Local Government as distinct from Regional Government, as some of us advocate, is generally closer to the people and, therefore, more readily fulfils the democratic principle. With 30 or even 100 Regional Governments for many Australian the first level of Government would still be quite remote, in spite of superior means of communications. Sure, there would need to be some further amalgamations to reduce the still large number of Local Councils nationally but these details can be left for the discussion.
Therefore, strengthening the Local Government level combined with Regional Development are desirable objectives in my view and the two need to be linked. It is the clusters of Local Government Councils, where commonality of regional interests have already been identified for some considerable time, which should form the core of regional activity. Regions in this context are territorial areas grafted on to Local Government clusters, not lines on a map or essentially primarily bio-diverse regions, so designated for environmental commonalities. They are the result of the needs of people and are, in the main, voluntarily created by Local Government clusters, not by a higher authority.
d. Regions as adjuncts to Local Government - the Mezzanine Concept
Such regions would then become adjuncts to Local Government, elected by them and, in the first instance, accountable to them. We could say that the regional administrations - and that description would be most appropriate - are indirectly elected by the Local Government clusters. It is only in this way that Local Government achieves the semi-independence and autonomy that brings, at least in part, Government to the people. This would end the Cinderella status of Local Government. While the Kelty Reports recognised the need for a bottom-up approach to Regional Development it did so in the sense of 'broad-based community', rather than using the existing Local Council system. There was a lot of talk of 'partnership arrangements' which are usually temporary, weakly defined channels. Of course, there are at present Local Councils which do not inspire confidence and this situation would certainly have to be addressed.
However, such a regional organisation as suggested here, has to be defined and provided for in a new Republican Constitution. Provision has to be made for their proper functioning and operation, and for the authority flow in relation to Local Councils. The Constitution should provide a safety net for vulnerable regions, especially regions which have difficulty in maintaining themselves financially. Thus equalisation grants used by the Grant Commission to maintain comparable living standards amongst the states (as at present), to create equity, could be applied in like manner to regions, and some guidelines laid down for equitable distribution amongst the Local Government clusters. This system has worked well in the past. and there is no reason not to extend its contributions.
The principal purpose for Local Councils to form Voluntary Regional Organisations (also referred to as the Regional Organistion of Councils or ROC) has been resource sharing. In a time that Councils experience serious financial stress, especially in rural areas the need for resource sharing has never been greater. However, as Schultze reported Voluntary Regional Organisations have been in existence for quite some time. 'As early as the 1920s Councils formed regional organisations in order to improve the effectiveness of Local Government. In the 1970s the then Commonwealth Department of Urban and Regional (DURD) required the establishment of regional organisations of Local Government for the distribution of Commonwealth Grants'
She argued that the established patters of cooperation, communication and mutual trust between member Council working together in a regional organisation provide a climate that is receptive to resource sharing. Her study covered some 24 VORs throughout Australia. Resource sharing can be defined as 'any arrangement where a local government body cooperates with another body or bodies to share financial, human, physical resources to achieve an objective'. There are a great variety of services that fall under this definition. Some VORs have been very successful, other less so but it seems to me that here is the basis for successful partnerships as a natural adjunct to Local Government.
The VROs (or ROCs) operate as a kind of Mezzanine level of government, in my view, and can be formalised, without being inflexibly standardised, in a new Republican Constitution
e. Large City Government
It has always baffled me how large Australian cities can be effectively governed by a plethora of small and large Municipal Councils. Of course, this has grown historically but as the metropolis grew the problems of the sprawling, uncoordinated urban areas and the many common problems called for regional solutions, really often city-wide solutions which were hard to come by. Perhaps the Metropolitan area of Sydney has suffered most from such fragmentation, lack of overall planning and problem solving.
Whilst some would claim that there really is system in this madness pressures for amalgamation have grown - and often staunchly resisted - as the record of a recent NSW Report (2002) (by Professor Bryce? ) has shown. Yet, other large cities in the world have managed successfully to launch City Governments. In Australia the ACT may well be regarded as a City Government. Greater Brisbane has had its critics and they would say that this is not a good model to be followed by others. If so, other models need to be found. One could hardly deny that this must be desirable from the point of view of efficiency as the large city has a great number of inter-connected issues typical of any large-scale system, that cannot effectively be tackled by dozens of relatively small units. How it can or should be achieved is a different matter - and may result in suggestions by delegates and the paper by Mark Drummond. One thing should be obvious. Most Large City citizens do not identify with the Local Government of their residential area. They generally identify with the larger City of which they are residents. This is quite different from country cities and country towns. The identifications there is usually strong.
A further introductory point can be made here and that is that it seems that the State Governments actually perform in many respects the functions of City Governments, that is Capital City Government. The business of the bush is often a somewhat cumbersome add-on, part of the explanation of the neglect of rural and regional Australia.
f. Why should the Republic issue be connected with large-scale reform?
Australia is in crisis and this is certainly obvious in the divide between the city and the bush. However, it is in crisis in many other ways as well - even though this may not be obvious to many. Statements about the level of GDP or the level of statistical unemployment actually hide much of what is not going well. Even the glowing reports of the OECD are misleading in my view. For that reason Minimalism in respect of creating a Republic is not what is needed and we should remember that analyses of the 1999 failed Referendum actually suggest that much.
Economic development is highly unbalanced and mostly inadequate, while continued high levels urbanisation appear to be unstoppable. There is little serious and sustained investment in spreading economic development. The rural sector is in a state of constant siege and uncertainty. Education has been commercialised, privatised and dumbed down. Economic rationalism and privatisation of many public agencies have damaged public goods, institutions and services. High levels of insurance have made a large number of important public and private services impossible to continue. The collusion between the major parties and the mainstream media, as well the grossly inadequate electoral system, that has basically created a two-party tyranny, have blocked the emergence of quality alternatives for public policy. There has been a recurring lack of quality in the leadership of this nation. Political leaders fail to address the most fundamental issues in particular efforts to change the system. The pitiful public debate on the Republic in the 1990s is a prime example of not getting to the heart of the matter. There is no real Opposition any longer with the exception of a handful of Independents and minor party representatives Piecemeal tinkering entertains no such agenda. In fact, late in 2002 neither major party has any serious plans to address the Republic issue or constitutional change at all. Both are very much part of the many problems facing Australia, not of their solution. Really, we may ask: why should voters continue to look to them for solutions?
The neo-liberal philosophy appears to be hell bent on shrinking the size of our Government, play along with the World Trade Organisation and the General Agreement on Trade in Services. Increasingly the major decisions about the economy are made in the Board rooms of foreign transnational corporations, especially US corporations. We have a Coalition Government that'll do just about everything the US wants Australia to do and an Official Opposition that mostly follows suit, a political class that is increasingly becoming a comprador class. In the meantime the growing inequality of incomes, the obscene salary packages of mediocre or incompetent senior executives, and the degradation of the environment continues unabated.
A Response to Republican Minimalism: Strategic Maximalism
Two overriding issues have to be addressed in a new approach. First the Australian people need to be convinced that there are real benefits in a Republic for them. That means that the many and varied problems the society is facing will be addressed by the changes at the very least that they are eased and possibly resolved. Obviously a strategy including the abolition of the states, resulting in a saving of over $30 billion plus per annum, provides enormous potential to deliver additional public goods and services. Secondly, the people need to be extensively involved in the process of constitution-making resulting in ownership of the new constitution.
Basically there are three short conclusions to this paper. In terms of the content of this paper:
Firstly, create two levels of Government: National and Local and provide for Mezzanine type of Regions based on the VOR or ROC principle to stimulate regional development - together with massive encouragement from the National Government.
Secondly, for the purpose of this Conference: plan a publication comprising the models put forward at the Conference to stimulate wider discussion.
Thirdly, encourage voters to vote for parties that favour SYSTEM CHANGE rather than the same or similar public polic packages presented in different wrappings by Australia's two-party tyranny. That means, in essence, that voters should start looking more closely at the policies of smaller parties, including those not now represented in Parliaments which have policies for systems change in their platform.
Australian Political Science Association - Annual Conference 2000, Canberra several papers on the Referendum and Republic, available at their website
Commonwealth of Australia (1993) - An Australian Republic - The Options - The Appendices, Vol. 2, The Report of the Advisory Committee, Government Printer
Constitutional Centenary Foundation (1993) - Heads of State - A Comparative Perspective, Carlton, Vic
Department of Parliamentary Library (1994) , Australian Urban and Regional Development; The Policy Challenge, Reserarch Paper No. 8, 1994
Drummond, M. - 'Costing Constitutional Change: Estimating the Costs of Five Variations on Australia's Federal System', Australian Journal of Public Administration 61(4): 43- 56, December 2002
Hall, R. (1998) - Abolish the States - Australia's Future and a $30 billion answer to our tax problems, Pan Macmillan
Harris, B (2002) - A New Constitution for Australia, Ashgate-Gower Asia Pacific.
McKenna, M. (1996) - The Captive Republic - A History of Republicanism in Australia, 1788 - 1996, Cambridge University Press
National Committee on Regional Cooperation (1993) - Productive Partnerships towards Regional Prosperity
Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia (2000) - Time is Running Out - Shaping Regional Australia's Future
Patmore, P. & Jungwirth, G. (2002) - The Big Makeover - A New Australian Constitution, Pluto Press/Australian Fabian Society
Productivity Commission (1999) - Inpact of Competition Policy Reforms on rural and Regional Australia, Commonwealth of Australia
Schultze, Marjorie (1992) - Voluntary Regional Cooperation and Resource Sharing between Local Government, Commonwealth of Australia.
Solomon, D. (1999) - Coming of Age. QUP
Stilwell, Frank J. B. (1993) - Reshaping Australia : urban problems and policies, Pluto Press.
Stilwell, Frank J. B.(1992) - Understanding cities & regions : spatial political economy, Pluto Press
Task Force on Regional Development (1993) - Developing Australia - A Regional Perspective, three volumes, Commonwealth of Australia.
Williams, G. (2000) - A Bill of Rights for Australia, UNSW
Winterton, G. (1999) - Republic Resurrected, Federation Press